ArticlePLoS currents2017
Estimation of Time Period for Effective Human Inhalational Anthrax Treatment Including Antitoxin Therapy.
Article in PLoS currents, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- A phase 1 trial of lipid-encapsulated mRNA encoding a monoclonal antibody with neutralizing activity against Chikungunya virus.Nature medicine · 2021Trial
- Chimeric Antibody Engineering AgainstToxins · 2026Article
- Peptidoglycan from Bacillus anthracis Inhibits Human Macrophage Efferocytosis in Part by Reducing Cell Surface Expression of MERTK and TIM-3.ImmunoHorizons · 2024Article
- Bioinspired detoxification of blood: The efficient removal of anthrax toxin protective antigen using an extracorporeal macroporous adsorbent device.Scientific reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInfrequent natural human inhalational anthrax cases coupled with high bioterrorism risk have brought about use of animal models to serve as the basis for approval of novel treatments. For inhalational anthrax, protective antigen (PA) drives much of the mortality, and raxibacumab, an anti-PA monoclonal antibody, has been approved for therapeutic use using the Animal Rule. Given the paucity of human inhalational anthrax clinical data including PA kinetics, the post-exposure period for effective treatment of human disease remains unknown. The objective of this investigation was to extrapolate animal PA kinetics to a conceptual human model to estimate the post-exposure period for effective treatment of human inhalational anthrax.
methodsHuman PA kinetic parameters were extrapolated from reported rabbit and monkey data. PA profiles were simulated with and without antibiotic induced PA clearance to represent antibiotic-sensitive and -resistant infections, respectively. Antitoxin levels equimolar to or greater than concurrent PA levels were considered protective.
resultsFor antibiotic sensitive infections, treatment with antibiotics alone ≤4 days after spore exposure prevents toxemia. Administration of raxibacumab together with antibiotics protects ≥ 80% of subjects for 3 additional days (7 days post exposure). In the setting of antibiotic resistance, raxibacumab would be protective for at least 6 days post exposure.
conclusionsAlthough the animal model of disease does not reflect the potential impact of supportive care (e.g. fluid resuscitation received by critically ill patients) on PA kinetics and raxibacumab PK, the simulations suggest that administration of antitoxin in combination with antibiotics should provide a longer postexposure window for effective treatment than for antibiotics alone. In addition, raxibacumab administration soon after exposure to an antibiotic resistant strain should provide effective treatment.
Identifiers
28856066PMC5555766W2741762943What 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.