Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26072016›Full record

ArticleVaccine2015

Bridging non-human primate correlates of protection to reassess the Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed booster schedule in humans.

Jarad M Schiffer, Ligong Chen, Shannon Dalton, Nancy A Niemuth, Carol L Sabourin, Conrad P Quinn

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Use of Anthrax Vaccine in the United States: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, 2019.MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2019
    Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Human anthrax vaccines: Current status and future prospects.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jarad M SchifferCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA 30333, United States. Electronic address: jschiffer@cdc.gov.
Ligong ChenAtlanta Research and Education Foundation (AREF), Decatur, GA 30033, United States.
Shannon DaltonAtlanta Research and Education Foundation (AREF), Decatur, GA 30033, United States.
Nancy A NiemuthBattelle, 505 King Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, United States.
Carol L SabourinBattelle, 505 King Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, United States.
Conrad P QuinnCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA 30333, United States.
Atlanta Research and Education Foundation · USBattelle · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed (AVA, BioThrax) is approved for use in humans as a priming series of 3 intramuscular (i.m.) injections (0, 1, 6 months; 3-IM) with boosters at 12 and 18 months, and annually thereafter for those at continued risk of infection. A reduction in AVA booster frequency would lessen the burden of vaccination, reduce the cumulative frequency of vaccine associated adverse events and potentially expand vaccine coverage by requiring fewer doses per schedule. Because human inhalation anthrax studies are neither feasible nor ethical, AVA efficacy estimates are determined using cross-species bridging of immune correlates of protection (COP) identified in animal models. We have previously reported that the AVA 3-IM priming series provided high levels of protection in non-human primates (NHP) against inhalation anthrax for up to 4 years after the first vaccination. Penalized logistic regressions of those NHP immunological data identified that anti-protective antigen (anti-PA) IgG concentration measured just prior to infectious challenge was the most accurate single COP. In the present analysis, cross-species logistic regression models of this COP were used to predict probability of survival during a 43 month study in humans receiving the current 3-dose priming and 4 boosters (12, 18, 30 and 42 months; 7-IM) and reduced schedules with boosters at months 18 and 42 only (5-IM), or at month 42 only (4-IM). All models predicted high survival probabilities for the reduced schedules from 7 to 43 months. The predicted survival probabilities for the reduced schedules were 86.8% (4-IM) and 95.8% (5-IM) at month 42 when antibody levels were lowest. The data indicated that 4-IM and 5-IM are both viable alternatives to the current AVA pre-exposure prophylaxis schedule.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnthraxAnthrax VaccinesAntibodies, BacterialAntigens, BacterialBacterial ToxinsBiomarkersBiostatisticsHumansImmunization, SecondaryImmunoglobulin GInjections, IntramuscularModels, AnimalPrimatesSurvival Analysisanthrax toxinAnthrax VaccinesAntibodies, BacterialAntigens, BacterialBacterial ToxinsBiomarkersBiothraxImmunoglobulin GAnimal modelAnthraxAnthrax Vaccine AdsorbedAVABacillus anthracisBiothraxClinical trialCorrelates of protectionNon-clinical trial

Identifiers

PMID26072016
PMCPMC6360524
OpenAlexW595459554

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.