超级病菌[纽约客]

读者: 4394    发布时间: 2008

原文: superbugs---[TNY]

Superbugs

The new generation of resistant infections is almost impossible to treat.

Doctors fear that dangerous bacteria may become entrenched in hospitals.

Doctors fear that dangerous bacteria may become entrenched in hospitals.

Infections; Antibiotics

In August, 2000, Dr. Roger Wetherbee, an infectious-disease expert at New York University’s Tisch Hospital, received a disturbing call from the hospital’s microbiology laboratory. At the time, Wetherbee was in charge of handling outbreaks of dangerous microbes in the hospital, and the laboratory had isolated a bacterium called Klebsiella pneumoniae from a patient in an intensive-care unit. “It was literally resistant to every meaningful antibiotic that we had,” Wetherbee recalled recently. The microbe was sensitive only to a drug called colistin, which had been developed decades earlier and largely abandoned as a systemic treatment, because it can severely damage the kidneys. “So we had this report, and I looked at it and said to myself, ‘My God, this is an organism that basically we can’t treat.’ ”

Klebsiella is in a class of bacteria called gram-negative, based on its failure to pick up the dye in a Gram’s stain test. (Gram-positive organisms, which include Streptococcus and Staphylococcus , have a different cellular structure.) It inhabits both humans and animals and can survive in water and on inanimate objects. We can carry it on our skin and in our noses and throats, but it is most often found in our stool, and fecal contamination on the hands of caregivers is the most frequent source of infection among patients. Healthy people can harbor Klebsiella to no detrimental effect; those with debilitating conditions, like liver disease or severe diabetes, or those recovering from major surgery, are most likely to fall ill. The bacterium is oval in shape, resembling a TicTac, and has a thick, sugar-filled outer coat, which makes it difficult for white blood cells to engulf and destroy it. Fimbria—fine, hairlike extensions that enable Klebsiella to adhere to the lining of the throat, trachea, and bronchi—project from the bacteria’s surface; the attached microbes can travel deep into our lungs, where they destroy the delicate alveoli, the air sacs that allow us to obtain oxygen. The resulting hemorrhage produces a blood-filled sputum, nicknamed “currant jelly.” Klebsiella can also attach to the urinary tract and infect the kidneys. When the bacteria enter the bloodstream, they release a fatty substance known as an endotoxin, which injures the lining of the blood vessels and can cause fatal shock.

Tisch Hospital has four intensive-care units, all in the east wing on the fifteenth floor, and at the time of the outbreak there were thirty-two intensive-care beds. The I.C.U.s were built in 1961, and although the equipment had been modernized over the years, the units had otherwise remained relatively unchanged: the beds were close to each other, with I.V. pumps and respirators between them, and doctors and nursing staff were shared among the various I.C.U.s. This was an ideal environment for a highly infectious bacterium.

It was the first major outbreak of this multidrug-resistant strain of Klebsiella in the United States, and Wetherbee was concerned that the bacterium had become so well adapted in the I.C.U. that it could not be killed with the usual ammonia and phenol disinfectants. Only bleach seemed able to destroy it. Wetherbee and his team instructed doctors, nurses, and custodial staff to perform meticulous hand washing, and had them wear gowns and gloves when attending to infected patients. He instituted strict protocols to insure that gloves were changed and hands vigorously disinfected after handling the tubing on each patient’s ventilator. Spray bottles with bleach solutions were installed in the I.C.U.s, and surfaces and equipment were cleaned several times a day. Nevertheless, in the ensuing months Klebsiella infected more than a dozen patients.

In late autumn of 2000, in addition to pneumonia patients began contracting urinary-tract and bloodstream infections from Klebsiella. The latter are often lethal, since once Klebsiella infects the bloodstream it can spread to every organ in the body. Wetherbee reviewed procedures in the I.C.U. again and discovered that the Foley catheters, used to drain urine from the bladder, had become a common source of contamination; when emptying the urine bags, staff members inadvertently splashed infected urine onto their gloves and onto nearby machinery. “They were very effectively moving the organism from one bed to the next,” Wetherbee said. He ordered all the I.C.U.s to be decontaminated; the patients were temporarily moved out, supplies discarded, curtains changed, and each room was cleaned from floor to ceiling with a bleach solution. Even so, of the thirty-four patients with infections that year, nearly half died. The outbreak subsided in October, 2003, after even more stringent procedures for decontamination and hygiene were instituted: patients kept in isolation, and staff and visitors required to wear gloves, masks, and gowns at all times.

“My basic premise,” Wetherbee said, “is that you take a capable microörganism like Klebsiella and you put it through the gruelling test of being exposed to a broad spectrum of antibiotics and it will eventually defeat your efforts, as this one did.” Although Tisch Hospital has not had another outbreak, the bacteria appeared soon after at several hospitals in Brooklyn and one in Queens. When I spoke to infectious-disease experts this spring, I was told that the resistant Klebsiella had also appeared at Mt. Sinai Medical Center, in Manhattan, and in hospitals in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Cleveland, and St. Louis.

Of the so-called superbugs—those bacteria that have developed immunity to a wide number of antibiotics—the methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, is the most well known. Dr. Robert Moellering, a professor at Harvard Medical School, a past president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and a leading expert on antibiotic resistance, pointed out that MRSA, like Klebsiella, originally occurred in I.C.U.s, especially among patients who had undergone major surgery. “Until about ten years ago,” Moellering told me, “virtually all cases of MRSA were either in hospitals or nursing homes. In the hospital setting, they cause wound infections after surgery, pneumonias, and bloodstream infections from indwelling catheters. But they can cause a variety of other infections, all the way to bacterial meningitis.” The first deaths from MRSA in community settings, reported at the end of the nineteen-nineties, were among children in North Dakota and Minnesota. “And then it started showing up in men who have sex with men,” Moellering said. “Soon, it began to be spread in prisons among the prisoners. Now we see it in a whole bunch of other populations.” An outbreak among the St. Louis Rams football team, passed on through shared equipment, particularly affected the team’s linemen; artificial turf, which causes skin abrasions that are prone to infection, exacerbated the problem. Other outbreaks were reported among insular religious groups in rural New York; Hurricane Katrina evacuees; and illegal tattoo recipients. “And now it’s basically everybody,” Moellering said. The deadly toxin produced by the strain of MRSA found in U.S. communities, Panton-Valentine leukocidin, is thought to destroy the membranes of white blood cells, damaging the body’s primary defense against the microbe. In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded some nineteen thousand deaths and a hundred and five thousand infections from MRSA.

Unlike resistant forms of Klebsiella and other gram-negative bacteria, however, MRSA can be treated. “There are about a dozen new antibiotics coming on the market in the next couple of years,” Moellering noted. “But there are no good drugs coming along for these gram-negatives.” Klebsiella and similarly classified bacteria, including Acinetobacter, Enterobacter, and Pseudomonas, have an extra cellular envelope that MRSA lacks, and that hampers the entry of large molecules like antibiotic drugs. “The Klebsiella that caused particular trouble in New York are spreading out,” Moellering told me. “They have very high mortality rates. They are sort of the doomsday-scenario bugs.”

In 1968, Moellering travelled to Malaita, in the Solomon Islands. “I was really interested to see whether we could find an antibiotic-resistant population of bacteria in a place that had never seen antibiotics,” Moellering said. The natives practiced head-hunting and cannibalism, and were isolated as much by conflict as by the island’s dense jungle. Moellering identified microbes there that were resistant to the antibiotics streptomycin and tetracycline, which were then in use in the West but had never been introduced clinically on Malaita. Later studies found resistant bacteria in many other isolated indigenous human populations, as well as in natural reservoirs like aquifers.

Before the development of antibiotics, the threat of infection was urgent: until 1936, pneumonia was the No. 1 cause of death in the United States, and amputation was sometimes the only cure for infected wounds. The introduction of sulfa drugs, in the nineteen-thirties, and penicillin, in the nineteen-forties, suddenly made many bacterial infections curable. As a result, doctors prescribed the drugs widely—often for sore throats, sinus congestion, and coughs that were due not to bacteria but to viruses. In response, bacteria quickly developed resistance to the most common antibiotics. The public assumed that the pharmaceutical industry and researchers in academic hospitals would continue to identify effective new treatments, and for many years they did. In the nineteen-eighties, a class of drugs called carbapenems was developed to combat gram-negative organisms like Klebsiella, Pseudomonas, and Acinetobacter. “They were, at the time, thought to be drugs of last resort, because they had activity against a whole variety of multiply-resistant gram-negative bacteria that were already floating around,” Moellering said. Many hospitals put the drugs “on reserve,” but an apparent cure-all was too tempting for some physicians, and the tight stewardship slowly broke down. Inevitably, mutant, resistant microbes flourished, and even the carbapenems’ effectiveness waned.

Now microbes are appearing far outside their environmental niches. Acinetobacter thrives in warm, humid climates, like Honduras, as well as in parts of Iraq, and is normally found in soil. An article published in the military magazine Proceedings in February reported that more than two hundred and fifty patients at U.S. military hospitals were infected with a highly resistant strain of Acinetobacter between 2003 and 2005, with seven deaths as of June, 2006, linked to “Acinetobacter-related complications.” In 2004, about thirty per cent of all patients returning from Iraq and Afghanistan tested positive for the bacteria. “It’s a big problem, and it’s contaminated the evacuation facilities in Germany and a lot of the V.A. hospitals in the United States where these soldiers have been brought,” Moellering said. Patients evacuated to Stockholm from Thailand after the 2004 tsunami were often infected with resistant gram-negative microbes, including a strain of Acinetobacter that was resistant even to colistin, the antibiotic used, to variable effect, in the outbreak at Tisch Hospital. The practice of “clinical tourism,” in which patients travel long distances for more advanced or more affordable medical centers, may introduce resistant microbes into hospitals where they had not existed before.

Meanwhile, antibiotic use in agricultural industries has grown rapidly. “Seventy per cent of the antibiotics administered in America end up in agriculture,” Michael Pollan, a professor of journalism at Berkeley and the author of “In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto,” told me. “The drugs are not used to cure sick animals but to prevent them from getting sick, because we crowd them together under filthy circumstances. These are perfect environments for disease. And we also have found, for reasons that I don’t think we entirely understand, that administering low levels of antibiotics to animals speeds their growth.” The theory is that by killing intestinal bacteria the competition for energy is reduced, so that the animal absorbs more energy from the food and therefore grows faster. The Food and Drug Administration, which is often criticized for its lack of attention to the risks of widespread use of antibiotics, offers recommended, non-binding guidelines for these drugs but has rarely withdrawn approval for their application. A spokesman for the Center for Veterinary Medicine at the F.D.A. told me that the center “believes that prudent drug-use principles are essential to the control of antimicrobial resistance.” A study by David L. Smith, Jonathan Dushoff, and J. Glenn Morris, published by PLoS Medicine, from the Public Library of Science, in 2005, noted that the transmission of resistant bacteria from animal to human populations is difficult to measure, but that “antibiotics and antibiotic-resistant bacteria (ARB) are found in the air and soil around farms, in surface and ground water, in wild-animal populations, and on retail meat and poultry. ARB are carried into the kitchen on contaminated meat and poultry, where other foods are cross-contaminated because of common unsafe handling practices.” The researchers developed a mathematical model that suggested that the impact of the transmission of these bacteria from agriculture may be more significant than that of hospital transmissions. “The problem is that we have created the perfect environment in which to breed superbugs that are antibiotic-resistant,” Pollan told me. “We’ve created a petri dish in our factory farms for the evolution of dangerous pathogens.”

Ten years ago, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, in Washington, D.C., assessed the economic impact of resistant microbes in the United States at up to five billion dollars, and experts now believe the figure to be much higher. In July, 2004, the Infectious Diseases Society of America released a white paper, “Bad Bugs, No Drugs: As Antibiotic Discovery Stagnates . . . A Public Health Crisis Brews,” citing 2002 C.D.C. data showing that, of that year’s estimated ninety thousand deaths annually in U.S. hospitals owing to bacterial infection, more than seventy per cent had been caused by organisms that were resistant to at least one of the drugs commonly used to treat them. Drawing on these data, collected mostly from hospitals in large urban areas which are affiliated with medical schools, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found more than a hundred thousand cases of gram-negative antibiotic-resistant bacteria. No precise numbers for all infections, including those outside hospitals, have been calculated, but the C.D.C. also reported that, among gram-negative hospital-acquired infections, about twenty per cent were resistant to state-of-the-art drugs.

In April, I visited Dr. Stuart Levy, at Tufts University School of Medicine. Levy is a researcher-physician who has made key discoveries about how bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. In addition to the natural cell envelope of Klebsiella, Levy outlined three primary changes in bacteria that make them resistant to antibiotics. Each change involves either a mutation in the bacterium’s own DNA or the importation of mutated DNA from another. (Bacteria can exchange DNA in the form of plasmids, molecules that are shared by the microbes and allow them to survive inhibitory antibiotics.) First, the bacteria may acquire an enzyme that can either act like a pair of scissors, cutting the drug into an inactive form, or modify the drug’s chemical structure, so that it is rendered impotent. Thirty years ago, Levy discovered a second change: pumps inside the bacteria that could spit out the antibiotic once it had passed through the cell wall. His first reports were met with profound skepticism, but now, Levy told me, “most people would say that efflux is the most common form of bacterial resistance to antibiotics.” The third change involves mutations that alter the inner contents of the microbe, so that the antibiotic can no longer inactivate its target.

Global studies have shown how quickly these bacteria can develop and spread. “This has been a problem in Mediterranean Europe that started about ten years ago,” Dr. Christian Giske told me. Giske is a clinical microbiologist at Karolinska University Hospital, in Stockholm, who, with researchers in Israel and Denmark, recently reported on the worldwide spread of resistant gram-negative bacteria. He continued, “It started to get really serious during the last five or six years and has become really dramatic in Greece.” A decade ago, only a few microbes in Southern Europe had multidrug resistance; now some fifty to sixty per cent of hospital-acquired infections are resistant.

Giske and his colleagues found that infection with a resistant strain of Pseudomonas increased, twofold to fivefold, a patient’s risk of dying, and increased about twofold the patient’s hospital stay. Like other experts in the field, Giske’s team was concerned about the lack of new antibiotics being developed to combat gram-negative bacteria. “There are now a growing number of reports of cases of infections caused by gram-negative organisms for which no adequate therapeutic options exist,” Giske and his colleagues wrote. “This return to the preantibiotic era has become a reality in many parts of the world.”

Doctors and researchers fear that these bacteria may become entrenched in hospitals, threatening any patient who has significant health issues. “Anytime you hear about some kid getting snatched, you want to find something in that story that will convince you that that family is different from yours,” Dr. Louis Rice, an expert in antibiotic resistance at Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, told me. “But the problem is that any of us could be an I.C.U. patient tomorrow. It’s not easy to convey this to people if it’s not immediately a threat. You don’t want to think about it. But it’s actually anybody who goes into a hospital. This is scary stuff.” Rice mentioned that he had a mild sinusitis and was hoping it would not need to be treated, because taking an antibiotic could change the balance of microbes in his body and make it easier for him to contract a pathogenic organism while doing his rounds at the hospital.

Genetic elements in the bacteria that promote resistance may also move into other, more easily contracted bugs. Moellering pointed out that, while Klebsiella seems best adapted to hospital settings, and poses the greatest risk to patients, other gram-negative bacteria—specifically E. coli, which is a frequent cause of urinary-tract infection in otherwise healthy people—have recently picked up the genes from Klebsiella which promote resistance to antibiotics.

In the past, large pharmaceutical companies were the primary sources of antibiotic research. But many of these companies have abandoned the field. “Eli Lilly and Company developed the first cephalosporins,” Moellering told me, referring to familiar drugs like Keflex. “They developed a huge number of important anti-microbial agents. They had incredible chemistry and incredible research facilities, and, unfortunately, they have completely pulled out of it now. After Squibb merged with Bristol-Myers, they closed their antibacterial program,” he said, as did Abbott, which developed key agents in the past treatment of gram-negative bacteria. A recent assessment of progress in the field, from U.C.L.A., concluded, “FDA approval of new antibacterial agents decreased by 56 per cent over the past 20 years (1998-2002 vs. 1983-1987),” noting that, in the researchers’ projection of future development only six of the five hundred and six drugs currently being developed were new antibacterial agents. Drug companies are looking for blockbuster therapies that must be taken daily for decades, drugs like Lipitor, for high cholesterol, or Zyprexa, for psychiatric disorders, used by millions of people and generating many billions of dollars each year. Antibiotics are used to treat infections, and are therefore prescribed only for days or weeks. (The exception is the use of antibiotics in livestock, which is both a profit-driver and a potential cause of antibiotic resistance.)

“Antibiotics are the only class of drugs where all the experts, as soon as you introduce them clinically, we go out and tell everyone to try to hold it in reserve,” Rice pointed out. “If there is a new cardiology drug, every cardiologist out there is saying that everyone deserves to be on it.” In February, Rice wrote an editorial in the Journal of Infectious Diseases criticizing the lack of support from the National Institutes of Health; without this support, he wrote, “the big picture did not receive the attention it deserved.” Rice acknowledges that there are competing agendas. “As loud as my voice might be, there are louder voices screaming ‘AIDS,’ ” he told me. “And there are congressmen screaming ‘bioterrorism.’ ” Rice came up with the acronym ESKAPE bacteria—Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumanni, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and the Entero-bacter species—as a way of communicating the threat these microbes pose, and the Infectious Diseases Society is lobbying Congress to pass the Strategies to Address Antimicrobial Resistance Act, which would earmark funding for research on ESKAPE microbes and also set up clinical trials on how to limit infection and antibiotic resistance. Rice has also proposed studies to determine the most effective use—at what dosage, and for how long—of antibiotics for common infections like bronchitis and sinusitis.

Dr. Anthony Fauci is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which chairs the federal interagency working group on microbial resistance. Fauci told me that the government is acutely aware of the severity of the problem. He pointed out that the N.I.H. recently issued a call for proposals to study optimal use of antibiotics for common bacterial infections. It has also funded so-called “coöperative agreements,” including one on Klebsiella, to facilitate public-private partnerships where the basic research from the institute or from university laboratories can be combined with development by a pharmaceutical or a biotech company. Even so, the total funding for studying the resistance of ESKAPE microbes is about thirty-five million dollars, a fraction of the two hundred million dollars provided by the NIAID for research on antimicrobial resistance, most of which goes to malaria, t.b., and H.I.V. “The difficulty that we are faced with is that our budget has been flat for the last five years,” Fauci told me. “In real dollars, we’ve lost almost fifteen per cent purchasing power,” because of an inflation index of about three per cent for biomedical research and development.

Since September 11, 2001, significant funding has been directed toward the study of anthrax and other microbes, like the one that causes plague, which could be used as bioweapons. Although there is little concern that Klebsiella or Acinetobacter might be weaponized, the basic science of their mutation and resistance could be useful in helping us to understand these threats. Fauci hopes to make the case that funds for biodefense should be used to study the ESKAPE bugs, but, for now, he is quick to point out the challenge posed by a lack of resources. “The problem is, it is extremely difficult to do a prospective controlled trial, because when people come into the hospital they immediately get started on some treatment, which ruins the period of study,” he said, referring to research into the treatment of common infections. “The culture of American medicine makes a study like that more difficult to execute.”

These types of studies—on how often, and for how long, antibiotics should be prescribed—are much easier to conduct in countries where medicine is largely socialized and prescriptions are tightly regulated. Recently, researchers in Israel, where most citizens receive their care through such a system, showed that refraining from empirically prescribing antibiotics during the summer months resulted in a sharp decline in ear infections caused by antibiotic-resistant microbes. (In the United States, a 1998 study estimated that fifty-five per cent of all antibiotics prescribed for respiratory infections in outpatients—22.6 million prescriptions—were unnecessary.) In Sweden, the government closely monitors all infections, and has the power to intervene as needed. “Our infection-control people have a lot of authority,” Giske said. “This is power from the legislation.” Once a resistant microbe is identified, stringent protocols are put in place, with dramatic results. Fewer than two per cent of the staphylococci in Sweden are MRSA, compared with sixty per cent in the United States. “Of course, it’s only around ten million people, so it’s possible to intervene because everything is smaller,” Giske said, adding, “Maybe Swedes are more used to this type of intervention and regulation.”

Stuart Levy’s laboratory occupies the eighth floor of a renovated building on Harrison Avenue in Boston’s Chinatown, across the street from Tufts Medical Center. As I passed from his office into the corridor, I detected the acrid smell of agar, which is used to grow bacteria. That day, a laboratory technician was testing specimens taken from the eyes of people with bacterial conjunctivitis who had been given an antibiotic eye drop containing fluoroquinolone. Levy was comparing the bacteria from the infected eyes with those in the noses, cheeks, and throats of the same patients. His technician held up a petri dish with a cranberry-colored agar base. The patient’s specimen was growing bacteria that were susceptible to the antibiotic; the drug had created a large oval clear zone on the plate which resembled the halo around the moon. The study investigates whether an antibiotic applied to the eye would affect bacteria in the nose and mouth as well, which might indicate that what seems to be an innocuous and limited treatment may profoundly change a wider area of the body and foster resistant microbes.

Levy has also received funding from the N.I.H. to study Yersinia pestis, the microbe that causes plague; the Department of Agriculture has sponsored his study of Pseudomonas fluorescens, a soil-based bacterium that has the potential to protect plants from microbial infection. He plans to develop it as a biocontrol agent, so that farmers can be weaned off the potent antibiotics and chemicals they use to treat their fields. “We need to treat biology with biology, not chemistry,” he said. In other studies, Levy and his team are looking at ways to render bacteria nondestructive and noninvasive, so that they might enter the body without harmful effects. This makes it necessary to identify virulence factors—which parts of the bacteria cause damage to our tissues. Levy’s laboratory is targeting a protein in gram-negative organisms called MAR, which appears to act as a master switch, turning on both virulence genes and genes that mediate resistance, like the efflux pump. In collaboration with a startup company called Paratek, of which Levy is a co-founder, his laboratory is screening novel compounds in the hope of finding a drug that blocks MAR.

Frederick Ausubel, a bacterial geneticist at the Massachusetts General Hospital, in Boston, is searching for drugs to combat bacterial virulence, using tiny animals like worms, which have intestinal cells that are similar to those in humans, and which are susceptible to lethal microbial infection. The worm that Ausubel is studying, Caenorhabditis elegans, is one and a half millimetres in length. “You are probably going to have to screen millions of compounds and you can’t screen millions of infected mice,” Ausubel said. “So our approach was to find an alternative host that could be infected with human pathogens which was small enough and cheap enough to be used in drug screens. What’s remarkable is that many common human pathogens, including Staphylococcus and Pseudomonas, will cause intestinal infection and kill the worms. So now you can look for a compound that cures it, that prevents the pathogen from killing the host.” Ausubel first screened some six thousand compounds by hand and found eight, none of them traditional antibiotics, that may protect the worms. He is also attempting, among other potential solutions, to find a compound that would block what is called “quorum sensing,” in which bacteria release small molecules to communicate with one another and signal when a critical mass is present. Once this quorum is reached, the bacteria turn on their virulence genes. “Bacteria don’t want to alert their host that they are there by immediately producing virulence factors which the host would recognize,” triggering the immune system, Ausubel explained. “When they reach a certain quorum, there are too many of them for the host to do anything about it.” Bonnie Bassler, a molecular biologist at Princeton University, has recently shown that it is through quorum sensing that cholera bacteria are able to accumulate in the intestines and release toxins that can be fatal; Pseudomonas is also known to switch on its virulence genes in response to signals from quorum sensing.

Moellering is enthusiastic but cautious about this avenue of research. “It’s a great idea, but so far nobody has been able to make it work for human infections,” he told me. With certain types of staphylococci, Moellering said, “mutations have occurred spontaneously in nature that cut down on a number of virulence factors . . . but they still cause serious infections. I’m not sure that we have a way yet to use what we know about virulence factors to develop effective antimicrobial agents. And we almost certainly will have to use these agents in combination with antibiotics.” No one, Moellering said, has developed a way to disarm bacteria sufficiently to allow the human body to naturally and consistently defend against them. I asked him what we should do to combat these new superbugs. “Nobody has the answer right now,” he said. “The fact of the matter is that we have found all the easy targets” for drug development. He went on, “So the only other thing we can do is continue to work on antibiotic stewardship.” Meanwhile, new resistant bacteria, Moellering asserted, aren’t going to go away. “We can temper things, we might be able to slow the rate of emergence of resistance, but it’s unlikely that we will ever be able to conquer it.”

译文: 超级病菌[纽约客]

新一代传染病很难对付!

Doctors fear that dangerous bacteria may become entrenched in hospitals.

      医生担心危险的细菌有可能盘踞医院。

      2000年8月,纽约大学Tisch医院的传染病专家,Roger Wetherbee医生接到一个让他不安的电话,电话来自医院的微生物实验室。那时,Wetherbee负责处理医院的微生物突发事件。实验室从一个I.C.U病房的病人身上隔离了一种克雷伯氏肺炎菌。Wetherbee最近回忆说:“毫不夸张地说,它能抵抗我们那时已知的任何一种抗生素。这种微生物只对抗敌素这一种药物敏感。抗敌素是十几年前开发出来的,因为它会严重破坏肾组织,未被用于系统治疗。“这样我们就有了这份报告,我看着它对自己说‘天啦,这是我们基本上无法对付的生物。’”

      克雷伯氏菌是一种革兰氏阴性细菌, 主要是它在革兰氏染色试验中不能染色(革兰氏阴性细菌包括链球菌和葡萄球菌,具有特别的细胞结构)。它栖息在人和动物身上,在水里和没有生命的物体上也能存活。我们的皮肤、鼻子和喉咙里都可能带有这种细菌,但最多的还是在我们的粪便中。护理者手上沾染的排泄物是病人间最大的传染源。健康的人可以避开克雷伯氏菌的有害影响;那些体质差的,像肝病患者或严重糖尿病患者,或那些术后恢复期的人,是最容易受感染的。这种细菌呈椭圆形,像TicTac,有一层厚厚的充满了糖的外壳,这让白细胞很难吞噬它并破坏它。从细菌表面凸出的菌毛-细细的,象头发一样的延长部分-能让克雷伯氏细菌附着在喉咙、气管,支气管的里层。附着的细菌能深入到我们的肺中,破坏柔弱的肺泡。肺泡是让我们获得氧气的气囊。肺部出血的结果就是导致血痰,俗称:“果酱样痰”。克雷伯氏菌还能侵入尿道,感染肾脏。当这种细菌侵入血液时,他们会释放出一种内毒素的脂肪物质,它能破坏血管内壁,并导致休克性死亡。

      Tisch医院有四个重症监护中心,都在15层的东面,在大爆发的时候,那里有32张重症监护病床。I.C.U建于1961年,尽管这些年来设备在不断更新,但这个病房的格局仍相对保持不变:床与床之间靠得很近,中间还有静脉注射泵和人工呼吸器,这里的医生的护士管理所有的病房。这些形成了高传染性细菌的理想环境。

      在美国,这次是这种具有多药物耐药性的克雷伯氏菌第一次爆发,Whterbee担心这种完全适应I.C.U环境的细菌,常用的消毒剂氨水和石碳酸不能杀死它。似乎只有漂白剂能破坏它。Wtherbee和他的团队要求医生、护士和监护人员在护理传染病人时进行严格的手部消毒工作,让他们带上手套穿上防护服。他制订了严格的规章,以确保为每个病人的呼吸器上的接管后,手套要更换,手要严格消毒。I.C.U病房里配置装有漂白剂的喷雾瓶,台面和设备一天清洁好几遍。尽管这样,接下来几个月还是有十多个病人受到克雷伯氏细菌的感染。

      2000年的秋季末,除了肺炎,病人开始受到由克雷伯氏细菌引起的尿路感染和血液感染。后者经常是致命的,因为一旦克雷伯氏细菌感染了血液,它就能扩散到身体的每个器官。威勒比再次检查了I.C.U病房的流程,发现用来从膀胱导尿的福氏导尿管变成了公共污染源。在倒空尿袋的时候,医护人员会不经意地把受感染的尿溅到他们的手套上和附近的仪器上。Wetherbee说:“他们实际上把病菌从一张病床转移到下一张病床上了。”他下令所有I.C.U都要消毒,病人被临时移出去了,药品被抛弃了,窗帘更换了,每一个房间从天花到地板都用漂白剂清洁过了。即使这样,那年被感染的34个病人中,几乎一半死亡。在制订了更严格的消毒和卫生流程后,即:病人隔离,医护人员和来访者任何时候都要穿长工作服,戴手套和口罩,这次暴发才在2003年10月平息下来。

      “我的基本假设是,”Wetherbee说:“当你拿像克雷伯氏菌这样强悍的微生物做广谱抗生素耐药性实验,最后它会逐渐占上风,就像克协伯氏菌所做的一样。”尽管Tisch医院没有再爆发,但这种细菌很快就在布鲁克林的其他几个医院和昆斯的一家医院出现了。今年春天当我和传染病专家谈到这件事的时候,我被告知曼哈顿的西奈山医疗中心,新泽西、宾夕法尼亚、克莱夭兰和圣路易斯的几家医院都出现了耐药性的克雷伯氏菌。

      在这些所谓的超级细菌中-那些对大部分抗生素产生耐药性的细菌中,金黄色葡萄球菌,或者叫MRSA,是最有名的。哈佛医学院的教授,美国传染病协会的前主席,抗生素耐药性资深专家,Robert Moellering博士,指出:MRSA,和克雷伯氏细菌一样,最初产生于I.C.U,特别是在那些做了大外科手术的病人中。“直到10年前,”默伊勒林告诉我:“实际上所有MRSA病例要么来自医院和要么来自家庭护理。在医院,他们能导致术后伤口感染,肺炎,从留置导尿管引起血液感染。而且,他们还能引起各种其他感染,直至细菌性骨髓炎。”据报道,来自社区医院的第一例MRSA死亡病例发生在上世纪90年代,受害者是在北达科他和明尼苏达州儿童。“然后,它就开始出现在男同性念者中,”Moellering说:“很快,它开始在监狱的犯人中传播。现在忆覆盖了所有的其他人群。”一次疫情是发生在圣路易斯球队中,通过共用设备传播,特别受影响的是球队巡边员;人工草皮又加剧了这个情况,因它会让皮肤擦伤,而这又容易导致感染。据报道,在纽约乡村的保守宗教团体中、飓风卡特里娜撤离者中、在非法场所的接受文身的人中都发现了疫情。“现在基本上是人人自危,”Moellering说。在美国发现了由MRSA菌株产生的致命毒素,金黄色葡萄球菌杀白细胞毒素,被认为能破坏白细胞的细胞膜,破坏人体对微生物的基本防御。2006年,疾病防御与控制中心记录了大概1900个MRSA死亡病例和10500个感染病例。

      与克雷伯氏菌和其他的革兰氏阴性细菌的耐药形式不同,MRSA是可以治愈的。“接下来几年将有大约十几种新的抗生素问市,”Moellering说。“但是这中间没有能对付这些革兰氏阴性细菌的好药。”克雷伯氏菌和其他同种类的细菌,包括不动菌属,肠杆菌属和单胞菌属,有着MRSA不具有的细胞壳,这个阻碍了像抗生素这样的大分子的进入。“克雷伯氏菌在纽约市制造的大麻烦正在扩散,”Moellering告诉我。“他们有很高的致死率,他们是那种世界末日病菌。”

      1968年,Moellering来到了所罗门群岛的马来塔岛。“在一个抗生素从未到过的地方,能否找到抗生素耐药性菌群,是非常吸引人的,”Moellering说。当地人实行猎头和吃人肉。这里丛林密布,由于冲突相互隔绝。Moellering在那里找出了对链霉素和四环素具有耐药性的微生物,这些药物只是在西方应用,从未流入马来塔岛。后来的研究发现抗药性细菌存在于其他与世隔绝的本土居民中,在由地下水形成的天然水池中也有。

      在抗生素未发现之前,细菌感染的治疗是个大难题:直到1936年,肺炎在美国是第一大杀手,切除是治疗感染伤口的唯一方法。二十世纪三十年代磺胺基类药物和四十年代盘尼西林的应用,一下子让很多传染病可以治愈了。结果医生们广开处方-很多都是用于不是由于细菌而是病毒引起的咽喉痛,鼻塞和咳嗽。相应的,细菌很快就对这些最常用的抗生素产生了耐药性。公众都寄希望于制药行业和学术性医院的研究能持续推出新的更有效的治疗方法,而且这么多年来他们也做到这一点。在二十世纪八十年代,一种叫碳青霉烯的药物被开发出来,专门对付像克雷伯氏菌,革兰氏阴性细菌,假单胞菌和不动菌。Moellering说“在那时,他们被认为是对付这些细菌的绝杀手段。因为他们确实对当时已知的具有多重耐药性的所有革兰氏阴性细菌都活性。”许多医院都把这些药物当作“杀手锏”,但是显然对有些内科医师来说全部有效太有诱惑力了,最后严格的使用规则被打破了。不可避免地,经过突变后的具有耐药性的微生物漫延开来,直至碳青霉烯类药物的作用下降。

      现在微生物远远超出了它们的栖身环境。不动细菌适应温暖潮湿的气候生,比如洪都拉斯,在伊拉克部分地区也有,且一般在泥土里。军事杂志Proceeding里有篇文章报道:从2003到2005年间,美国陆军医院有250例病人受到高耐药性的不动细菌菌株感染,2006年6月7例死亡,死于“不动杆菌相关并发症”。2004年,大约30%的从阿富汗和伊拉克返回的病人检测出细菌感染阳性。Moellering说:“这是个大问题,这使得德国的转移设施和大部分这些士兵去过的美国医院都受到了污染。”2004年大海啸后从泰国转移到斯德哥尔摩的病人经常会受到耐药性革兰氏阴性细菌的感染,包括一种对抗敌素有耐药性的不动杆菌菌株,而抗敌素是在Tisch医院的大爆发中发挥过大作用的。那种为了让病人转到更先进更适合的医疗中心去的长距离“临床旅行”,有可能会把耐药性细菌带到那些干净的医院里。

      同时,抗生素在农牧业中的应用快速增长。“在美国70%的抗生素止于农业,”Michael Pollan,伯克利的新闻教授,“保卫食物:一个食客的声明”的作者告诉我。“药物不是用来治疗那些生病的动物,而是用来防止它们生病,因为他们圈养的环境肮脏拥挤不堪。简直就是疾病繁殖的良好环境。而且我们还发现,使用少量的抗生素可加快动物的生长,我认为我们还不能完全明白其中原由。”这个理论就是:杀死肠道内的细菌以减少能量的竞争,这样动物能从食物中吸收更多的能量,长得更快一些。食品和药物管理局,经常被指责对滥用抗生素的风险缺乏重视。他们提供了建议性的、非正式的用药指南,但又很少减少新药的审批数量。F.D.A兽药中心的一个发言人告诉我中心“认为谨慎的药物使用原则对控制抗生素耐药性是必要的。”2005年由PLOS MEDICINE发布一份研究报告,研究是由来自科学公众图书馆的David L.Smith,Jonathan Dushoff和J.Glenn Morris共同进行的。研究指出:耐药性细菌从动物到人的传播途径无法得知,但“在农场周围的空气里和泥土里,在地表水和地下水中,在野生动物中,在零售的肉和家禽中都发现了抗生素和抗生素耐药性细菌(ARB)。被污染的肉和家禽把ARB带到了厨房,在那里由于一般家庭食物处理过程并不安全,又引起了食物交叉污染。”研究者建立了一个数学模型,以说明那些来自农牧业的细菌传染比来自医院的传染影响更大。“问题是我们为培养抗生素耐药性超级细菌创造了良好环境。”Pollan告诉我:“我们在我们的工业化农牧场里为危险的病原体的变革创造了一个培养皿。”

      十年前,位于华盛顿的国家科学院药物学研究所估计在美国耐药性微生物的经济影响已达50亿美元,现在专家认为这个数字可能更高。2004年7月,美国传染病协会发布了一份白皮书:“恶病菌,无药治:随着抗生素开发停滞不前...公众正面临健康危机。”引用2002年C.D.C的数据显示:根据那年的估计,在美国医院每年大约有九万人死于细菌感染,超过70%是死于耐药性的微生物感染。这些微生物对至少一种针对它们的常用抗生素具有耐药性。通过分析这些大多来自大城市的医学院附属医院的数据,疾病预防与控制中心发现1万例革兰氏阴性抗生素耐药性细菌病例。虽然对于包括医院外部在内的全部感染数据,目前还没有准确的统计。但是C.D.C还报道说,在医院的革兰氏阴性菌感染中,约20%对最先进的药物有耐药性。

      4月,我拜访了塔夫茨大学医学院的Stuart Levy博士。Levy是一个研究者和内科医师,是他发现了细菌对抗生素产生耐药性的关键所在。除了克雷伯氏菌的细胞胞外被膜,Levy列出了细菌对抗生素产生抵抗力的三种基本变化。每一种变化都涉及要么是细菌自身的DNA突变,要么是从其他个体接收突变DAN。(细菌可以以质粒的方式交换DNA,和微生物共享的分子,这样使得他们能在抑制他们的抗生素下存活。)首先,细菌可以获取一种酶,像剪刀一样,把药物剪成非活性状态,或者改变药物的化学结构,这样药物就无效了。三十年前,Levy发现了第二种变化:一旦抗生素穿过了细胞壁,细菌内的泵可以把抗生素吐出来。他的第一份报告遭到了极度的怀疑,但是现在,李威告诉我。“大多数人会说释出是细菌抵抗抗生素最常用的形式。”第三种变化涉及细菌可以改变其内部物质,使得抗生素不能灭活它的目标。

      全球性的研究表明细菌的发展传播是如此快速。“从大约十年前开始,欧洲地中海地区就出现了这一问题。”Christian Giske告诉我。Gsike是位于斯德哥尔摩的卡罗林斯卡大学医院的临床微生物学家。最近他和以色列以及丹麦的研究者一起报道了抗药性革兰氏阴性细菌的全球性传播。他继续道:“最近五六年间情况开始变得非常严重,在希腊甚至造成了恐慌。”十年前,在南欧只有几种微生物有多重耐药性;现在约50-60%的院内感染中是有耐药性的。

      Gisk和他的同伴们发现耐药性假单细胞菌株的感染将使病人面临死亡的风险增加了2到3倍,使病人住院时间增加2倍。像这个领域的其他专家一样,Gisk的团队也担心现在缺乏新的针对革兰氏阴性细菌的抗生素问世。“现在针对革兰氏阴性细菌感染,缺乏足够的治疗方案的报道越来越多,”Gisk和他的团队在报道中写道:“现实是在世界的许多地方又回到了没有抗生素的时代。”

      医生和研究者们担心细菌将会在医院盘踞,威胁任何一个有明显健康问题的病人。“任何时候当你听到有些小孩患重病时,你总是想从中探寻原因以让你确信这个家庭和你的家庭不一样,”Louis Rice博士说。Rice是路易斯 斯托克斯 克里夫兰VA医学中心的抗生素耐药性专家,他告诉我:“但问题是明天我们中的任何一个都会成为I.C.U病人。如果不是迫在眉睫的话,人们是很难明白这一点的。你不愿去想它。但是真的有人进了医院,这真是让人害怕。”Rice提到他有中度鼻窦炎,希望病情不要发展到需要治疗的程度,因为使用抗生素会改变他体内的微生物平衡,这样会让他在医院巡视的时候更容易感染病原性细菌。

      细菌中能促进抗药性的遗传因子能转移到更具感染性的病菌中。Moellering提出,克雷伯氏菌似乎完全适应了医院环境,对病人形成了最大威胁,而其他的革兰氏阴性菌-特别是大肠杆菌,那种通常导致健康人沁尿系统感染的细菌-最近已从克雷伯氏菌获取了促进抗药性的基因。

      过去,大的医药公司是抗生素研究的主要来源。但是大部分公司都放弃了这个领域。“礼来公司开发了第一代先锋霉素,”Moellring指着常用药如先锋霉素IV告诉我:“他们开发了大量的重要的抗生素药。他们的化工和研究设备无以论比,但是,不幸的是,他们已经完全从这一领域撤出了。当百时美和施贵宝合并后,他们关闭了他们的抗生素项目。”他说,过去开发了用于治疗革兰氏阴性细菌的关键药品的Abbott也退出了。最近来自U.C.L.A在此领域的一个项评估总结道:“过去20年来FDA批准的新的抗生素药物减少了56%(1998-2002vs.1983-1987)。”这项评估还指出,在研究者的506个新药开发计划中,6种正在开发的是新的抗生素。医药公司青睐那种能带来巨大效益的数十年内日日都能使用的药物,就象降胆固醇药利匹妥,或精神分裂症药金普萨一样被成上百万人使用,且每年带来数十亿美元。抗生素被用来治疗感染,而且只能数天或数周使用。(除了用于家禽的抗生素,而这既能带来利益,但又是细菌产生抗生素耐药性的潜在原因.)

      “抗生素是唯一一种药:一旦你把它应用于临床,我们所有的专家都出来告诉每个人都要谨慎使用。”Rice指出:“如果是一种新的心脏病药物,每个心脏病学家都会说每个人都能使用它。”二月,Rice在传染病日报上写了一份社论批评缺乏来自N.I.H的支持;没有它的支持,他写到:“前景不堪设想。”Rice认识到还有竞争。“我的呼声很大,但来自‘AIDS’的尖叫声更大。”他告诉我。“还有众议院议员的‘生物恐怖主义’呼声。”Rice用缩写ESKAPE细菌-肠球菌,金黄色酿脓葡萄球菌,克雷白氏杆菌,鲍曼不动杆菌,绿脓假单胞菌和肠杆菌-来表示这些微生物所具有的危险性。传染病协会已游说国会通过《发起抗微生物药抵抗行动的战略》,这将为研究ESKAPE微生物设立基金,并建立临床试验以研究如何限止感染和降低微生物耐药性。Rice还发起了一项研究,主要是确定用于普通感染如支气管炎和鼻窦炎的抗生素的最有效用法-多大剂量,多长时间。

      Anthony Fauci博士是美国国立过敏和传染病研究所的主任,他领导着一个联邦微生物耐药性研究工作组。Fauci告诉我政府其实认识到了问题的严重性。他指出N.I.H最近发起了一个号召,建议研究用于普通细菌感染的抗生素的最优用法。它也是建立在被称作"协作协议"上的,包括对克雷伯氏菌的研究,以促进公共和私人的合作。这样就可以把来自研究所或大学实验室的基础研究与制药公司或生物科技公司的发展结合起来。即使这样,用于ESKAPE微生物耐药性研究的基金总共需要3500万美元,由NIAID提供的2500万美元的一小部分用于研究微生物的耐药性,大部分分给了疟疾,结核和H.I.V。“我们所面临的困难是近5年的预算已经持平了。”福茨告诉我,“在现美元下,我们已经损失了50%的购买力。”大约3%用于生物医学研究和开发,从而引起的资金紧张。

      自从2001年9月11日,相当部分基金被指向炭疽热和其他微生物的研究,如能导致瘟疫的,可被用作生化武器的细菌。尽管很少考虑到克雷伯氏菌或不动细菌可被用作生化武器,但他们的突变及耐药性的基本科学原理有助于理解这些威胁。福茨希望开这样一个例子,那就是用于生化防卫的基金能用于研究ESKAPE病菌,但是,现在他很快被指出现在的挑战是缺乏资源。“问题是,做一个有希望的控制实验非常难,因为当人们进医院后,他们很快就开始了治疗,这破坏了研究周期。”他指着那些针对普通感染的治疗研究说。“美国的医学文化让这种研究很难进行。”

      这种有关抗生素应多长时间,以什么频率使用的研究,在那些医疗大面积社会化,处方被严格管理的国家,相对容易进行一些。以色列的居民接受的就是这样的医疗系统。近来,在以色列的研究者展示:在夏季限止依经验开出抗生素处方,可减少由抗生素耐药性微生物引起的耳部感染的。(在美国,1998年一项研究估计,为患呼吸道感染的门诊病人所开出所有抗生素处方中,50%是不必要的。)在瑞典,政府严密监测所有的感染,一旦需要就会介入。“我们的传染控制人员有很多权力,”Gisk说,“这是立法赋予的力量。”一旦一种耐药性微生物被识别出来,强化政策就会起作用,并起到明显效果。同美国的60%相比,瑞典只有少于2%的葡萄球菌是MRSA。“当然,只有1000万人口,每一件事情都小,因此介入是可能的,”Gisk补充说,“也许瑞典人已经适应了这种介入和规则。”

      Stuart Levy的实验室位于波士顿中国城哈里森区一栋粉刷一新的大楼里,占据了这栋楼的八层。街对面就是图夫兹医疗中心。当我穿过他的办公室到达走廊时,我闻到了石花菜的酸味。那天,一个实验室技术人员正在测试从患有细菌性眼结膜炎的人眼睛上提取的样本。这些人用过氟喹诺酮类眼药水。Levy正在把这些来自受感染眼睛的细菌与来自同一病人的鼻子,脸颊和喉咙里的细菌相比较。他的技术人员拿着一个皮氏培养皿,里面装着曼越橘色的石花菜培养基。病人的样本是正在繁殖的细菌,这些细菌对抗生素敏感。药物已经在盘子里形成了一个大的清晰的椭圆形区域,就象月亮旁边的光晕一样。这项研究要调查用于眼睛的抗生素是否会影响鼻子和嘴里的细菌,那些看起来是无害的有限的治疗有可能深深地改变身体的大部分区域,并且还会培养耐药性细菌。

      Levy也接受来自N.I.H的基金,以研究鼠疫菌,一种能引起瘟疫的细菌;农业部还赞助了他的荧光假单细胞菌研究,一种基于土壤的细菌,它能够防止植物受到细菌的感染。他计划把它开发成生物药物,以便农民能抛弃他们用来处理土地的常用抗生素和化学物质。“我们需要用生物学对付生物学,而不是化学,”他说。在其他的研究中,Levy和他的团队正在寻找展示细菌的非破坏性和非侵害性的方法,以便能无害地进入人的身体。这就有必要要找出它的毒素-那些对我们的组织有害的部分。Levy的实验室正锁定革兰氏阴性细菌内的一种叫MAR的蛋白质,它似乎起着主开关的作用,开关有害基因和调节抵抗力的基因,就像一个外排泵。在与一个名叫Paratek的新成立的公司的合作中,他的实验室正筛选出异常的混合物,有望找到一种能阻断MAR的药物。李威也是这个公司共同创立者。

      Frederick Ausubel,波士顿曼彻斯特总院的细菌基因学家,正利用那些细小动物如蠕虫,来寻找能战胜细菌毒性的药物。这些小动物有着与人一样的粘膜细胞,容易受致命细菌的感染。Ausubel所研究的这种虫子-秀丽线虫,长1.5毫米。“你可能去筛选上百万种化合物,但你不可能筛选上万只老鼠,”Ausubel说。“因此我们的方法是找到一种替代的宿主,这种宿主能感染人类病原体,而且足够小,足够便宜,以便用于药物筛选。值得注意的是许多人类普通的病原体,包括葡萄球菌和单胞菌,都会引起粘膜感染并杀死这种蠕虫。这样你就能找到一种的化合物,它能防止病原体杀死宿主。”Ausubel首先手工筛选出了600种化合物,并发现了8种可以保护蠕虫的化合物,它们都不是传统的抗生素。他还试图从其他可能的方法中找出能阻止所谓的“群体感应”。群体感应就是当临界群体出现时,细菌就会释放出小分子来发信号并相互交流。一旦群体数量达到时,细菌就会打开它们的毒性基因。“细菌不想让他们的宿主知道他们的存在,因此他们快速制造有毒基因,这样他们的宿主就不会识别出来,触发免疫系统,Ausubel解释说。“当他们达到一定数量时,因为他们的数量太多,宿主对他们也就无能为力了。”普林斯顿大学的分子生物学家,Bonnie Bassier,最近被告知通过群体感应霍乱菌能在粘膜内聚积起来释放出致命的毒素;据了解假单细胞菌也会打开它的有毒基因以响应来自群体的信号。

      Moellering对这个研究区域既乐观又谨慎。“这是个好主意,但迄今为止还没人能够把它用于人体感染,”他告诉我。对于特定种类的葡萄球菌,Moellering说,“在自然状态下,基因突变自发地产生,并降低了一定数量的有毒因子....但是他们仍带来严重的感染。我不能肯定我们有没有利用我们对有毒因子的了解来开发有效的抗生素药物的方法。但我们几乎可以肯定我们将不得不结合抗生学来利用这些药物。”没有人,Moellering说,能够找出这样一种方法:能充分地解除细菌的武装,让人体能够自然地,坚实地抵御他们。我问他我们应如何来对付这些超级细菌。“现在没有人有正确答案。”他说。“事实是我们已经找到了药物开发的所有容易的目标。”他接着说,“因此我们所要做的另一件事就是继续抗生素的管理工作。”同时,新的抗药性细菌,Moellering强调,不会消失。“我们可以使事情缓和,我们可以减缓抗药性的出现率,但是可能我们永远也不能战胜它。”

 

我们正在进行纽约客中文翻译计划,如果你也感兴趣的话,就赶快加入我们吧 !——New Yorker翻译小组