ArticleVaccine2015
Bridging non-human primate correlates of protection to reassess the Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed booster schedule in humans.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 · 2019Guideline
- Safety and immunogenicity of the two-dose heterologous Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen in children in Sierra Leone: a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Human anthrax vaccines: Current status and future prospects.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Review
- Efficacy of different AV7909 dose regimens in a nonclinical model of pulmonary anthrax.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2023Article
- Development of Protective Immunity in New Zealand White Rabbits Challenged with Bacillus anthracis Spores and Treated with Antibiotics and Obiltoxaximab, a Monoclonal Antibody against Protective Antigen.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2018Article
- Article
- Recent developments in the understanding and use of anthrax vaccine adsorbed: achieving more with less.Expert review of vaccines · 2016Review
- Humoral and Cell-Mediated Immune Responses to Alternate Booster Schedules of Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed in Humans.Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI · 2016Article
- Anthrax prophylaxis: recent advances and future directions.Frontiers in microbiology · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.