Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29166654›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Therapeutic efficacy of equine botulism antitoxin in Rhesus macaques.

Shantha Kodihalli, Andrew Emanuel, Teresa Takla, Yi Hua, Charles Hobbs, Ross LeClaire, Denise C O'Donnell

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Biodefence research two decades on: worth the investment?The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Shantha KodihalliResearch and Development, Emergent BioSolution, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1520-5952
Andrew EmanuelResearch and Development, Emergent BioSolution, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Teresa TaklaResearch and Development, Emergent BioSolution, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Yi HuaClinical Research, Emergent BioSolutions, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Charles HobbsLovelace Respiratory Research Institute, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States of America.
Ross LeClaireLovelace Respiratory Research Institute, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States of America.
Denise C O'DonnellLovelace Respiratory Research Institute, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States of America.
Emergent BioSolutions (Canada) · CALovelace Respiratory Research Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are currently no licensed vaccines available for prevention of botulism in humans. The vaccination is not desirable due to expanding therapeutic indications of botulinum toxins. The only available specific treatment for botulism is antitoxin to remove circulating toxin, thus, preventing further neuronal damage. BAT® (Botulism Antitoxin Heptavalent (A, B, C, D, E, F, G)-(Equine)) has been developed and its therapeutic efficacy evaluated against botulinum neurotoxin serotype A (BoNT/A) in Rhesus macaques. METHODS AND

findingsIn a post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) study, animals were exposed to 4x LD50/kg of BoNT/A and administered intravenously with either BAT (1x or 0.1x scaled human dose), or placebo at 4 hours post-exposure. The animals were monitored for 14 days. For the therapeutic intervention studies, animals were exposed to a 1.7x LD50/kg of BoNT/A and treated intravenously with either placebo or BAT at a 1x scaled human dose at the onset of clinical signs. Animals were monitored on an hourly basis for 14 or 21 days. In the PEP study, all animals tolerated equine based antitoxin without any adverse clinical signs. A 100% survival was observed in groups treated with the BAT compared to 0% survival in those treated with the placebo (p<0.001, Fisher's exact test). BAT antitoxin prevented the development of signs of neurotoxicity of botulinum toxin. In a therapeutic study, treatment with the BAT at scaled 1x human dose after the onset of clinical signs significantly enhanced survival compared to the placebo (46.6% vs. 0%, p<0.0001, Fisher's exact test). Additionally, treatment with the BAT delayed the progression of signs (muscular weakness, respiratory distress, oral/nasal discharge) of toxin intoxication and reduced the severity of the disease.

conclusionsA single dose of BAT, when administered to symptomatic monkeys, resulted in a statistically significant survival benefit compared to the placebo. Additionally, BAT completely protected monkeys from the clinical signs of intoxication and subsequent death when administered as PEP treatment. These data in part supported the licensure of BAT under the Animal Rule in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration.

Indexed as

AnimalsBotulinum AntitoxinBotulinum ToxinsBotulismConfidence IntervalsHorsesKaplan-Meier EstimateMacaca mulattaMonkey DiseasesPlacebosPost-Exposure ProphylaxisSeverity of Illness IndexTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeBotulinum AntitoxinBotulinum ToxinsPlacebos

Identifiers

PMID29166654
PMCPMC5699824
OpenAlexW2770427647

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.