Infections of the Respiratory Tract
The disease influenza is primarily an infection of the respiratory tract. It varies from one of the most acute and fatal diseases we know of through all grades of severity—from chronic infections lasting over years to the familiar three or five day fever. This graduation is to be found more or less marked in all our bacterial infections, but would seem to be not generally recognized or appreciated as occurring in infections with the influenza bacillus. That Pfeiffer was dealing with one phase of the disease when the influenza bacillus was discovered does not invalidate the results of numerous workers which have been added since then.
Probably the greatest confusion in attempts to get a clear picture of this protean disease has been and is a non-recognition of influenza as a frequent complication of other diseases, such as measles (Jochmann, Susswein, Tedesko and very many others). The second cause for this confusion has been the misinterpretation of the facts demonstrating the rather frequent occurrence of carriers. During an epidemic the vast majority of patients show the disease as an upper respiratory infection of varying degrees of intensity, but which usually subsides after periods of from three to five days of fever. Along with this we have other graded manifestations of further involvement of the tract with laryngitis, bronchitis, bronchiolitis and all degrees of broncho-pneumonia. To prevent the severe lung involvement prompt treatment must be carried out, under which rest in bed is by long odds the most important. This will be discussed in another paper of this series, and was particularly well demonstrated in the results at the Naval Hospital as verbally reported to me by D. G. Richey. The interesting point is that the infection can be controlled, but this does not indicate the etiological factor as different from that acting in the more severe cases.
The epidemiological evidence would seem to show very clearly that the incubation period is approximately two days, and that a period of six weeks is the usual limit for the severe wave of the epidemic in different localities. In my opinion, during this period every exposed individual in a community has received the influenza bacillus in the respiratory tract, and that all the susceptible individuals are attacked and show more or less evidence of the infection. As a consequence of this general distribution we have great numbers of individuals carrying the organism, and the aftermath is to be noted in other and later manifestations of the same infection.
Sporadic cases of influenza appear during inter-epidemic periods and more or less healthy carriers are frequent. Scheller’s study in Königsberg showed, if we can rely on his figures, that the carriers were very numerous during an epidemic year (winter 1906-1907), being 24 to 33 per cent.; that as the epidemic became less widespread (winter 1907-1908) it fell to 10 to 13 per cent.; as it was disappearing (summer 1908) he found only 1.5 to 3.3 per cent.; while when the epidemic was completely over (winter 1908-1909) there were no carriers of B. influenzæ found. These results are taken from studies of sputa and throat smears of 138, 218, 155 and 185 cases, respectively, for the periods mentioned. The monumental work of Tedesko, who reported the results of 1,479 cultures, covering 11 years (1896-1906), would indicate that B. influenzæ is continually present in the population. However, in carefully analyzing his results, it is very clear that in the great majority of his cases it was of definite etiological significance. Lobular pneumonia, acute, purulent and chronic bronchitis, and most frequently clinical influenza, are the prominent diagnoses in all his tables. He was able to grow B. influenzæ repeatedly from individual patients for many months.
Lord in similar studies (1902, 1905, 1908) brought out somewhat similar facts. He laid particular stress on the cases of chronic bronchitis with numerous B. influenzæ in the sputum and a probable confusion of these with pulmonary tuberculosis. He was able to follow a number of his patients for several years. B. influenzæ was grown in culture from the sputum of one of these in 1902; in November, 1903; in February, 1904, and in February, 1905. In other cases the organism was shown to be present by culture practically continuously for months and even years. Lord, with Scott and Nye, in a recently published article (1919) reviewed his former results and showed a relatively high incidence of B. influenzæ in the respiratory tract of apparently healthy people. Davis studied 534 cases, further indicating the prevalence of this organism in the community.
The B. influenzæ has been recovered from the respiratory tract during the clinically pure influenza, from the sputum and lung in influenzal pneumonia, and from the purulent sputum in all grades of bronchitis. These should all be looked upon as true infections by the influenza bacillus, the varying manifestations merely differing with the resistance of the individual. In the epidemic in the fall of 1918 pneumonia was the outstanding feature. Preceding this in the English publications we have reports of outbreaks of purulent bronchitis. Macdonald and his co-workers, finding the B. influenzæ frequently present, considered the condition as one indication of a virulent infection by this organism. Hammond, Rolland and Shore reported similar cases, and Abrahams and his co-workers looked upon the cases of purulent bronchitis as occupying a position, without any definite line of demarcation, between those with definite broncho-pneumonia on the one side and those with simple bronchial catarrh on the other. H. E. Robertson emphasized the serious nature of influenzal purulent bronchitis and the almost epidemic character and rather high mortality of the outbreak in the winter and spring of 1917-1918. There were also numerous mild outbreaks of influenza before the overwhelming culmination of the last three months of 1918, as reported by Orticoni and many others and noted by Johnston in this series of papers. Greenwood in an epidemiological study emphasized the point, previously made evident by Parsons for the pandemic of 1889-1892, that the mass attack is preceded by numbers of individual cases. In this country it was noted during the winter of 1917-1918 and the following spring that the B. influenzæ was rather frequently found in the respiratory infection in our army camps (Soper, Cole and MacCallum and others).
It is well recognized that when the actual epidemic struck there were comparatively few bacteriologists familiar with the B. influenzæ. The real difficulties of isolation, the more favorable media, the facts of symbiosis, the importance of carriers, the varying manifestations of the infection and many of the other vitally important points, although more or less fully reported in the literature, were nevertheless practically unknown. It was my own experience, and that of many others. This must be seriously considered in analyzing many of the reports on bacteriological findings throughout the period of the severe wave and even after.
Results of Others During the Recent Pandemic
It will be impossible to review the numerous reports on the recent epidemic that have appeared. Many of these can be discounted, as far as the finding of B. influenzæ is concerned, for the reasons mentioned above. The often quoted report of Little, Garofalo and Williams, who did not even use a hemoglobin medium, will serve as an example. Little attention should be given to others where the large numbers of cases precluded the requisite time and media necessary for such a difficult problem. Friedlander and his co-workers in their report from Camp Sherman made no mention of the number of sputa, throat swabs or autopsies which they examined bacteriologically. The incidence of influenza showed a total of 10,979 cases, 2,001 of pulmonary œdema or pneumonia and 842 deaths. They recorded one culture from the sputum with pneumococcus predominating which gave two colonies of B. influenzæ, and this bacillus was grown from the lung exudate at one autopsy. Their conclusions that “B. influenzæ (Pfeiffer) has not been demonstrated as the causative organism” is certainly true from their results, but that “the frequency of its detection has not exceeded the frequency of its existence under normal conditions” can hardly be considered as established, if we accept the many results mentioned above as indicating its presence during inter-epidemic times, unless they mean by normal conditions practically complete freedom from this organism.