ReviewClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2022
Safety of Antimicrobials for Postexposure Prophylaxis and Treatment of Anthrax: A Review.
Review in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Anthrax: A narrative review.New microbes and new infections · 2024Review
- Rational corticosteroids administration and antibiotic treatment is key to managing cutaneous anthrax.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- CDC Guidelines for the Prevention and Treatment of Anthrax, 2023.MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2023Article
- Efficacy of Treatment with the Antibiotic Novobiocin against Infection withAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Responding to the Threat Posed by Anthrax: Updated Evidence to Improve Preparedness.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBacillus anthracis, the causative agent for anthrax, poses a potential bioterrorism threat and is capable of causing mass morbidity and mortality. Antimicrobials are the mainstay of postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) and treatment of anthrax. We conducted this safety review of 24 select antimicrobials to identify any new or emerging serious or severe adverse events (AEs) to help inform their risk-benefit evaluation for anthrax.
methodsTwenty-four antimicrobials were included in this review. Tertiary data sources (e.g. Lactmed, Micromedex, REPROTOX) were reviewed for safety information and summarized to evaluate the known risks of these antimicrobials. PubMed was also searched for published safety information on serious or severe AEs with these antimicrobials; AEs that met inclusion criteria were abstracted and reviewed.
resultsA total of 1316 articles were reviewed. No consistent observations or patterns were observed among the abstracted AEs for a given antimicrobial; therefore, the literature review did not reveal evidence of new or emerging AEs that would add to the risk-benefit profiles already known from tertiary data sources.
conclusionsThe reviewed antimicrobials have known and/or potential serious or severe risks that may influence selection when recommending an antimicrobial for PEP or treatment of anthrax. Given the high fatality rate of anthrax, the risk-benefit evaluation favors use of these antimicrobials for anthrax. The potential risks of antimicrobials should not preclude these reviewed antimicrobials from clinical consideration for anthrax but rather guide appropriate antimicrobial selection and prioritization across different patient populations with risk mitigation measures as warranted.
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.