Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33245364›Full record

ArticleClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2021

Diphtheria Antitoxin Administration, Outcomes, and Safety: Response to a Diphtheria Outbreak in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh.

Nell Eisenberg, Isabella Panunzi, Anja Wolz, Chiara Burzio, Anna Cilliers, Md Ariful Islam, Waqar Mohammad Noor, Oren Jalon, Deanna Jannat-Khah, Julita Gil Cuesta

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Diphtheria antitoxin treatment: from pioneer to neglected.Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. A Review of Adverse Events From the Use of Diphtheria Antitoxin (DAT) in the United States, 2004-2019.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Nell EisenbergMédecins Sans Frontières, Operational Center Brussels, Brussels, Belgium.
Isabella PanunziMédecins Sans Frontières, Operational Center Brussels, Brussels, Belgium.
Anja WolzMédecins Sans Frontières, Operational Center Brussels, Brussels, Belgium.
Chiara BurzioMédecins Sans Frontières, Operational Center Brussels, Brussels, Belgium.
Anna CilliersMédecins Sans Frontières, Operational Center Brussels, Brussels, Belgium.
Md Ariful IslamMédecins Sans Frontières, Operational Center Brussels, Brussels, Belgium.
Waqar Mohammad NoorMédecins Sans Frontières, Operational Center Brussels, Brussels, Belgium.
Oren JalonMédecins Sans Frontières, Operational Center Brussels, Brussels, Belgium.
Deanna Jannat-KhahDivision of Hospital Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Julita Gil CuestaMédecins Sans Frontières, Operational Center Brussels, Brussels, Belgium.
Médecins Sans Frontières · BECornell University · USNewYork–Presbyterian Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiphtheria has re-emerged over the past several years. There is a paucity of data on the administration and safety of diphtheria antitoxin (DAT), the standard treatment for diphtheria. The 2017-2018 outbreak among Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh was the largest in decades. We determined the outcomes of DAT-treated patients and describe the occurrence and risk factors associated with adverse reactions to DAT.

methodsWe conducted a retrospective study at the Médecins Sans Frontières Rubber Garden Diphtheria Treatment Center from December 2017-September 2018. Diphtheria was diagnosed based on the World Health Organization clinical case criteria. High-acuity patients were eligible for DAT. Safety precautions were meticulously maintained. We calculated the presence of adverse events by age, duration of illness, and DAT dosage using bivariate comparisons.

resultsWe treated 709 patients with DAT; 98% (n = 696) recovered and were discharged. One-fourth (n = 170) had at least 1 adverse reaction. Common reactions included cough (n = 115, 16%), rash (n = 66, 9%), and itching (n = 37, 5%). Three percent (n = 18) had severe hypersensitivity reactions. Five patients died during their DAT infusion or soon afterwards, but no deaths were attributed to DAT.

conclusionsOutcomes for DAT-treated patients were excellent; mortality was <1%. Adverse reactions occurred in one-quarter of all patients, but most reactions were mild and resolved quickly. DAT can be safely administered in a setting with basic critical care, provided there is continuous patient monitoring during the infusion, staff training on management of adverse effects, and attention to safety precautions.

Indexed as

DiphtheriaDiphtheria AntitoxinBangladeshDisease OutbreaksHumansRetrospective StudiesDiphtheria Antitoxinangladeshantitoxinsdiphtheriadisease outbreaksdrug-related side effects and adverse reactions

Identifiers

PMID33245364
PMCPMC8561263
OpenAlexW3107724734

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.