Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36251555›Full record

ArticleClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2022

Pre- and Postlicensure Animal Efficacy Studies Comparing Anthrax Antitoxins.

Raymond M Slay, Rachel Cook, Katherine Hendricks, David Boucher, Michael Merchlinsky

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Anthrax: A narrative review.New microbes and new infections · 2024
    Review
  2. Review
  3. CDC Guidelines for the Prevention and Treatment of Anthrax, 2023.MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2023
    Article
  4. Human Anthrax: Update of the Diagnosis and Treatment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  5. 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 · 2022
    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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Raymond M SlayNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Rachel CookOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, CDC Fellowship Program, Division of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Katherine HendricksDivision of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
David BoucherOffice of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Michael MerchlinskyOffice of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases · US

Funding

CDC HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe deliberate use of Bacillus anthracis spores is believed by the US government to be a high bioweapons threat. The first line of defense following potential exposure to B. anthracis spores would be postexposure prophylaxis with antimicrobials that have activity against B. anthracis. Additional therapies to address the effects of toxins may be needed in systemically ill individuals. Over the last 2 decades, the United States government (USG) collaborated with the private sector to develop, test, and stockpile 3 antitoxins: anthrax immunoglobulin intravenous (AIGIV), raxibacumab, and obiltoxaximab. All 3 products target protective antigen, a protein factor common to the 2 exotoxins released by B. anthracis, and hamper or block the toxins' effects and prevent or reduce pathogenesis. These antitoxins were approved for licensure by the United States Food and Drug Administration based on animal efficacy studies compared to placebo.

methodsWe describe USG-sponsored pre- and postlicensure studies that compared efficacy of 3 antitoxins in a New Zealand White rabbit model of inhalation anthrax; survival following a lethal aerosolized dose of B. anthracis spores was the key measure of effectiveness. To model therapeutic intervention, intravenous treatments were started following onset of antigenemia.

resultsIn pre- and postlicensure studies, all 3 antitoxins were superior to placebo; in the postlicensure study, raxibacumab and obiltoxaximab were superior to AIGIV, but neither was superior to the other.

conclusionsThese data illustrate the relative therapeutic benefit of the 3 antitoxins and provide a rationale to prioritize their deployment.

Indexed as

AnthraxAntitoxinsBacillus anthracisAnimalsAntigens, BacterialExotoxinsRabbitsAntigens, BacterialAntitoxinsExotoxinsantitoxinBacillus anthracisInhalation anthraxNew Zealand white rabbitprotective antigen

Identifiers

PMID36251555
PMCPMC9649416
OpenAlexW4306632817

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.