Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 41
2 Antibiotics for Anthrax Postexposure Prophylaxis The symptoms, treatment, and prognosis for a person with anthrax— the disease caused by Bacillus anthracis—depend on how the disease was contracted: gastrointestinal anthrax is acquired through ingestion of con- taminated (undercooked) meat from animals that have ingested naturally occurring spores from the ground; cutaneous anthrax requires physical contact with the spores or vegetative bacteria; and inhalational anthrax is the result of breathing in bacterial spores (Inglesby et al., 2002). Inhala- tional anthrax is considered the most severe bioterrorism threat of the three because the spores can travel significant distances through the air while remaining infectious, and it has the highest mortality rate (approaching 100 percent if untreated) (Inglesby et al., 2002). This chapter reviews the use of antibiotics for postexposure prophy- laxis (PEP) for inhalational anthrax, focusing specifically on factors that impact the design of distribution and dispensing plans, including preposi- tioning. The chapter begins by briefly examining two issues related to what is dispensed: first, the antibiotics that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for prevention of anthrax and second, the threat of an attack using a strain of B. anthracis that is resistant to one or more classes of antibiotics. The remainder of the chapter examines two issues related to when antibiotics should be dispensed: first, the incubation period of inhalational anthrax (time from exposure to appearance of symp- toms) and second, the delay from the time of an attack until the attack is detected and the decision to begin dispensing antibiotics is made. 41
OCR for page 42
42 PREPOSITIONING ANTIBIOTICS FOR ANTHRAX ANTIBIOTICS APPROVED FOR POSTEXPOSURE PROPHYLAXIS OF INHALATIONAL ANTHRAX Four antibiotics are FDA-approved for use for PEP following exposure to aerosolized spores of B. anthracis: doxycycline, ciprofloxacin, levofloxa- cin, and parenteral procaine penicillin G.1 Levofloxacin was approved for PEP for anthrax in 2004 for adults and in 2008 for children (FDA, 2004, 2008a). Controlled human efficacy studies involving anthrax are not pos- sible, so FDA approval of the inhalational anthrax PEP indications was based on animal efficacy studies and the large safety database for these antibiotics in humans (FDA, 2000b, 2002, 2008b, 2009).2 For adults ages 18 to 65 who have potentially been exposed to aerosol- ized spores of B. anthracis, the Centers for Disease Control and Preven- tion (CDC) recommends 60 days of treatment with either ciprofloxacin or doxycycline plus a three-dose series of anthrax vaccine adsorbed (AVA) starting as soon as possible after exposure (CDC, 2010; Stern et al., 2008).3 CDC recommends that levofloxacin be reserved as a second-line agent, as safety data on its use in treatment for longer than 28 days are limited (Stern et al., 2008). Levofloxacin should be used only when treatment with first-line therapies is hampered by patient drug tolerance issues or antimi- crobial resistance patterns (Stern et al., 2008). For children, ciprofloxacin or doxycycline also is used for first-line antimicrobial PEP. Because of the potential for serious adverse events, however, CDC recommends off-label use of amoxicillin as the preferred PEP agent if the anthrax strain is proven to be susceptible to that drug (CDC, 2005, 2010). Additional challenges of administering anthrax PEP to children include limited data on appropriate dosing and palatability of drug formulations. There is currently no recom- mendation for use of AVA in children; however, its use for those under age 18 is currently being considered (CDC, 2010).4 1 Note that no oral penicillin-class of antibiotic is currently FDA-approved for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) for anthrax. Current drug information, including PEP dosing for adults and children, is available on the FDA website at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/EmergencyPrepared- ness/BioterrorismandDrugPreparedness/ucm063485.htm. For certain patient groups, includ- ing children and pregnant women, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends off-label use of amoxicillin if susceptibility testing proves that the anthrax strain is susceptible (CDC, 2005). 2See Meyerhoff and Murphy (2002) for a detailed presentation of the antibiotics that were ap- proved by the Food and Drug Administration for anthrax postexposure prophylaxis as of 2001. 3 See CDC (2010), Table 1, for a summary of the current CDC recommendations for PEP with antimicrobial agents and AVA, available online at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/ mmwrhtml/rr5906a1.htm. 4 On July 7, 2011, the National Biodefense Science Board (NBSB), at the written request of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), convened an initial meeting to discuss vaccine to protect children from anthrax. The NBSB reported to the ASPR in October 2011. See http://www.phe.gov/ Preparedness/Legal/boards/nbsb/recommendations/Documents/avwgrpt1103.pdf.
OCR for page 43
43 ANTIBIOTICS FOR ANTHRAX POSTEXPOSURE PROPHYLAXIS For security reasons, CDC does not disclose the quantities of the dif- ferent types of antibiotics that are available from the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS), either through the initial Push Packages or through vendor- managed inventory. THE THREAT OF ANTIBIOTIC-RESISTANT ANTHRAX5 A material threat determination (MTD) was issued by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on September 22, 2006, specifi- cally for multi-drug-resistant (MDR) anthrax (DHS, 2008; GAO, 2009). Multiple papers on the development of B. anthracis strains resistant to one or more antibiotics have been published in the open literature (e.g., Athamna et al., 2004; Brouillard et al., 2006; Price et al., 2003; Stepanov et al., 1996). Laboratory generation of antibiotic-resistant anthrax involves relatively straightforward methodology that does not require a high level of microbiologic knowledge. (Key points and additional concerns regarding antibiotic-resistant anthrax are summarized in Box 2-1.) Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis of tissue samples (meninges, spleen, lymph node) from 11 autopsy-proven inhalational anthrax cases from the 1979 accidental release of anthrax in Sverdlovsk, Russia,6 revealed at least four strains of B. anthracis (Jackson et al., 1998). The existence of multiple strains has been hypothesized to suggest efforts to develop an antibiotic-resistant form of anthrax (Hugh-Jones, 2011). Given the current focus on doxycycline (a tetracycline-class antibiotic) as a first-line PEP treatment, an explicit analysis of the potential impact of doxycycline-resistant B. anthracis is warranted. Postal workers voluntarily p articipating in a pilot program for the postal model7 o f distribution of medical countermeasures (MCM), for example, were provided with MedKits that contained only doxycycline for storage in their homes. A large-scale attack with doxycycline-resistant anthrax could result in many 5 Because of cross-resistance of antibiotics within the same class, it is prudent to define drug resistance by antibiotic class and not by a single antibiotic within a given class (e.g., B. anthracis resistant to ciprofloxacin will likely also be resistant to levofloxacin, another quinolone-class antibiotic) (Athamna et al., 2004). Drugs from three classes of antibiotics are currently approved by the FDA for anthrax PEP: penicillins; fluoroquinolones (e.g., ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin); and tetracyclines (e.g., doxycycline) (FDA, 2011). For the pur- poses of this report, the committee applied the following definitions of antibiotic-resistant anthrax: single-drug (class)-resistant B. anthracis (SDR-anthrax) is resistant to a drug in any one of these three class of antibiotics; multi-drug (class)-resistant B. anthracis (MDR-anthrax) is resistant to drugs in any two of these three class of antibiotics; and extremely drug (class)- resistant B. anthracis (XDR-anthrax) is resistant to drugs in all three classes of antibiotics. (Note that SDR-, MDR-, and XDR-anthrax may or may not be resistant to other classes of antibiotics that are not currently FDA-approved for anthrax PEP.) 6 Discussed in more detail below. 7 The postal model and other MCM dispensing strategies are discussed further in Chapter 3.
OCR for page 44
44 PREPOSITIONING ANTIBIOTICS FOR ANTHRAX BOX 2-1 Antibiotic-Resistant Anthrax Key Points • A Material Threat Determination (MTD) was issued by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on September 22, 2006, specifically for multi-drug-resistant (MDR) anthrax. • T he level of microbiologic knowledge needed to create MDR an- thrax is not high, and descriptive methodology is available in the open scientific literature. • W hile visibility of a response mechanism often functions as a de- terrent (e.g., visible military strength), in the case of preposition- ing, increased public certainty about the plan could conceivably increase the probability of efforts to circumvent the response (i.e., adversarial development of strains resistant to prepositioned antibiotics). Additional Concerns • T here may be a loss of public trust if the antibiotic dispensed (whether prepositioned or dispensed via points of dispensing, the U.S. Postal Service, or some other mechanism) is ineffective in pre- venting anthrax as the result of an attack with a strain resistant to that antibiotic. • A s laboratory testing of antibiotic susceptibility is likely to take more than 2 days, antibiotic distribution and dispensing efforts in response to an anthrax attack would be initiated before the suscep- tibility profile of the attack strain was known. • A nthrax vaccine and antitoxin will likely be in even greater demand following an attack with an antibiotic-resistant anthrax strain as compared with a susceptible strain. • P rioritization of potential response plans for resistant anthrax strains is needed. This includes analysis of all oral antibiotics that were effective against the B. anthracis isolate from the 2001 an- thrax attack and other antibiotics studied since that time. more deaths if doxycycline were the primary (or only) antibiotic dispensed pre-event via prepositioning strategies. Prepositioning is a less flexible approach than more centralized dispens- ing strategies. Inventory flexibility includes the potential for use of multiple drugs, the potential for redeployment of inventories based on need, and the ease with which stockpiles can be rotated. With regard to the threat of antibiotic-resistant anthrax, a distribution and dispensing strategy that enables the dispensing of multiple drugs may be advantageous because it could allow selection of the antibiotic dispensed based on the susceptibility
OCR for page 45
45 ANTIBIOTICS FOR ANTHRAX POSTEXPOSURE PROPHYLAXIS of the strain.8 Although it will likely never be possible to have complete coverage against all potential strains using PEP antibiotics—given that specific antibiotics must be manufactured and stockpiled in advance and given the threat of MDR or extremely drug-resistant anthrax—increased flexibility to provide alternative antibiotics or other MCM would provide coverage against a broader range of attacks. Currently the SNS provides more flexibility than prepositioning strat- egies would be likely to provide because it contains several antibiotics (some of which are known to be stockpiled in larger quantities and others available through vendor-managed inventory), whereas only one antibiotic would likely be included in most prepositioning strategies. It would be possible, moreover, to purchase and store a greater variety of antibiotics in the centralized SNS stockpiles than is currently the case. Gaining this level of coverage using prepositioning strategies would involve purchasing much larger quantities of these different kinds of antibiotics, and any new anti- biotics are likely to be more expensive than doxycycline. In addition, while strategies based on points of dispensing (PODs) would allow the dispensing of additional MCM if the initially dispensed antibiotic were determined not to be effective against the anthrax strain used in an attack, a predispensing strategy would not provide a postattack mechanism for dispensing an alter- native MCM. The issue of flexibility is raised here because of its relevance to the threat of antibiotic-resistant anthrax, but it is examined in greater detail in Chapter 5. Some information about the current U.S. MCM distribution and dis- pensing system is already readily available online (e.g., that doxycycline is a major component of the SNS and that the FDA has issued an Emergency Use Authorization [EUA] for the use of doxycycline for PEP9). However, neither the specific quantities of the various antibiotics nor the types of anti- biotics available through vendor-managed inventory are disclosed. Further- more, it would theoretically be possible to avoid disclosure of the future contents of the SNS and state and local stockpiles (e.g., by increasing the number of public health officials with security clearances and/or by further using secured websites rather than public pages for formulary information). In contrast, prepositioning strategies—and predispensing in the home in particular—involve a higher level of public messaging and storage by a large number of people without security clearances. The result could be a much 8 As laboratory testing of antibiotic susceptibility is likely to take more than 2 days, anti- biotic distribution and dispensing efforts in response to an anthrax attack would be initiated before the susceptibility profile of the attack strain was known. If the strain were ultimately determined not to be susceptible to the antibiotic dispensed, an alternative MCM would have to be dispensed, provided one was available in the quantities needed. 9 Discussed in Chapter 3.
OCR for page 46
46 PREPOSITIONING ANTIBIOTICS FOR ANTHRAX greater degree of certainty about the planned response, potentially signal- ing an adversary to engineer a specific type of antibiotic-resistant anthrax. Finding 2-1: Prepositioning of a single type of antibiotic (or class of anti- biotics) would reduce flexibility to respond to the release of an antibiotic- resistant strain of anthrax, a biothreat recognized by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Furthermore, although some information about planned responses is already available in the public domain, prepositioning antibiotics in the home would provide a greater degree of certainty about the planned response and, therefore, could conceivably increase the prob- ability of release of a resistant strain of anthrax. INCUBATION PERIOD OF INHALATIONAL ANTHRAX: EXISTING DATA AND AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY Data on human exposure to aerosolized B. anthracis are limited, and there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding the incubation period (time from exposure to appearance of symptoms). A clear understanding of the incubation period is critical for decision making about MCM distribution and dispensing strategies, including prepositioning. An exposed population will exhibit a range of times from exposure to the appearance of symptoms for the exact same exposure/dose, and the shape of the distribution curve is important for decision making about pro- phylaxis strategies. If, for example, there is a wide range of incubation times, then even after the development of a small number of clinically recognized anthrax cases, sufficient time may exist to distribute and dispense antibiotics to a large fraction of still-asymptomatic persons, thereby protecting this fraction of the exposed population. On the other hand, if the distribution of incubation times is relatively narrow, much less time may be available in which to distribute and dispense antibiotics to the exposed population after initial identification of clinical cases. Beyond the shape of the distribution curve, the shortest incubation time that would be expected in an exposed population (i.e., the time at which the first person[s] would begin exhibit- ing symptoms) also is important for public health decision making about prepositioning. For ease of reference, this time is referred to as the minimum incubation period throughout the report. The minimum incubation period for inhalational anthrax is often stated to be 1 to 2 days; however, a review of the available data suggests that it is likely to be longer. A longer minimum incubation period, such as 4 days, would permit more time for the delivery of MCM before the onset of symptoms, and thus would have a direct impact on decisions regarding the need for prepositioning. The committee examined the current knowledge base on the incuba- tion period for inhalational anthrax, including data from several historical
OCR for page 47
47 ANTIBIOTICS FOR ANTHRAX POSTEXPOSURE PROPHYLAXIS human exposure incidents, from animal studies, and from incubation and dose-response theoretical modeling.10 This review was informed by a search of the literature and by discussions with invited experts at open sessions during committee meetings.11 As noted in Chapter 1, the committee did not review any classified information. United States 1900-2000: Occupational and Environmental Exposures Eighteen cases of inhalational anthrax were reported in the United States in the 20th century, the most recent (prior to 2001) occurring in 1976 (Brachman, 1980; Jernigan et al., 2001). In most cases, an unequivocal single-point-in-time exposure was not reported. Many of these cases were associated with chronic exposures (e.g., the five-person outbreak at a goat- hair processing mill in Manchester, New Hampshire, in 1957 [Plotkin et al., 1960]). One case reviewed by Brachman was that of a 46-year-old man who presented with symptoms 6 days after his last possible exposure to spores (the man had recently been employed at a metal shop adjacent to a goat- hair processing mill before the shop closed for a 2-week summer break). Brachman notes that “the projected incubation period of six days resembled those of previous cases” (Brachman, 1980, p. 90). United States 2001: Intentional Attacks by U.S. Mail In the fall of 2001, 11 people on the East Coast contracted inhalational anthrax, the source of which was determined to be anthrax-laced letters and packages sent through the U.S. mail (additional individuals contracted cutaneous anthrax). Nine of the 11 patients experienced an incubation period of 4 to 8 days, or possibly longer (Cole, 2003; Jernigan et al., 2001; see Table 2-1).12 For 2 of the 11 patients (in New York and Connecticut), the exposure is presumed to have occurred via cross-contaminated letters, and the date of exposure is unknown. 10 The often-cited systematic review of 82 inhalational anthrax cases from 1900 to 2005 by Holty and colleagues (2006) does not mention the incubation period for any of those cases. Moreover, this review “excluded 74 cases from the Sverdlovsk outbreak because symptoms, treatment, and disease progression variables were not reported” (p. 272). 11 A list of invited speakers/presentations is provided in Appendix B. 12 An account of the 2001 attacks was published by Jeanne Guillemin at the same time as the release of the prepublication copy of this IOM report (Guillemin, 2011). She relies on a September 25 scenario for the opening of an anthrax letter in Florida and therefore for the exposure of the two Florida victims (referenced in Table 2-1). She also identifies September 30 and September 28 as the dates of onset of symptoms of the two Florida victims. Traeger et al. (2002) identifies September 19 and 25 as the potential dates of exposure for the Florida victims and September 30 and 28 as the dates of onset of symptoms.
OCR for page 48
48 PREPOSITIONING ANTIBIOTICS FOR ANTHRAX TABLE 2-1 Known and Estimated Inhalational Anthrax Incubation Periods Following the 2001 Anthrax Attacks Individuals Incubation Date of Onset of Patient Location Infected Period (days) Exposure Symptoms 4a Washington, DC 4 Oct. 12 Oct. 16 5a New Jersey 1 Oct. 9 Oct. 14 6a New Jersey 1 Oct. 9 Oct. 15 8–10b Florida 1 Sept. 19 Sept. 27 or 29 9c Florida 1 Sept. 19 Sept. 28 5–10d Virginia 1 Oct. 12–17 Oct. 22 a Brentwood (DC) and Hamilton (New Jersey) postal facility workers with known exposure dates. b Individual presented on October 2 with anthrax meningitis. Investigators assume exposure occurred via a letter containing a white powder he was witnessed examining at his desk on September 19. c Estimated. The letter handler was admitted to a hospital on October 1, and likely infected by the same letter as the other Florida patient on September 19. d Estimated. A State Department postal worker was exposed to an unopened letter to Senator Leahy that passed through the Brentwood and State Department postal facilities. SOURCES: Cole, 2003; Jernigan et al., 2001. United States 2006, Scotland 2006, England 2008, and United States 2011: Exposure to Animal Hides and Unknown Source of Exposure Three recent cases were identified in which the likely source of exposure to aerosolized anthrax spores was determined to be imported African ani- mal hide drums (Anaraki et al., 2008; CDC, 2006b; Norris, 2009; Walsh et al., 2007). None of the three individuals infected had a clear-cut incubation period that could be calculated definitively. One additional case of inhalational anthrax was identified in Minnesota shortly before the release of this report (Minnesota Department of Health, 2011a). This case is considered to be naturally occurring inhalational anthrax, and exposure is believed to have occurred during travel in areas where anthrax is found in the soil and has been known to cause infections in animals (Minnesota Department of Health, 2011b). The exact time, location, and source of this patient’s exposure remain unknown, and thus an incubation period has not been determined.
OCR for page 49
49 ANTIBIOTICS FOR ANTHRAX POSTEXPOSURE PROPHYLAXIS Sverdlovsk, Russia 1979: Accidental Release Much of what is assumed about the incubation period of inhalational anthrax is based on data from what is believed to have been an accidental aerosolized release of anthrax spores from a military research facility in Sverdlovsk, Russia, in 1979. Considerable controversy persists around the exact nature and date of the release. The issue of the date of the exposure is worth examining as it pertains directly to the question of the duration of the incubation period for affected patients. Initially, the official Soviet explanation of the incident, supported by a published epidemiological analysis, was that it had been an outbreak of gastrointestinal anthrax due to meat contaminated with B. anthracis (Bezdenezhnykh and Nikiforov, 1980; Meselson, 1988). Subsequent state- ments (in the 1990s) by Russian officials and others support an accidental aerosolized release of spores from the military research facility as the probable cause (Meselson et al., 1994; Walker et al., 1994). Analysis by international investigators was hampered significantly by the confiscation of clinical, laboratory, and epidemiological data by the KGB (Russian national security agency) following the incident. To this day, it remains impossible to verify precise and comprehensive specific clinical and epidemiological data, including incubation periods, for many of the individuals suspected to have contracted inhalational anthrax. Most of the analyses that have been published have pieced together data from a variety of sources (e.g., the Abramova, Meselson, and Brookmeyer publications discussed below). To make the present study as comprehensive as possible, a committee member spoke with members of the U.S. team that traveled to Sverdlovsk in June 1992 to investigate the 1979 incident.13 Patient Exposure Compelling evidence supports Monday, April 2, as a date of an aero- solized spore release in Sverdlovsk, including plume modeling consistent with the wind direction recorded at nearby locations on that date, and the infection of five military reservists who were only present in the area on but not before that date (Guillemin, 1999; Meselson et al., 1994). Various times have been proposed for spore release on Monday, April 2, including afternoon (1:30-4:00 PM [Guillemin, 1999; Meselson et al., 1994]) and 13A member of the IOM committee contacted each of the members of the U.S. team that went to Sverdlovsk in 1992—by phone, in person, and/or by email communication—to discuss the 1979 Sverdlovsk incident. Note that the committee’s conclusions throughout this report are drawn from the totality of the evidence. The conclusions of the committee do not necessarily reflect the views of any of the five members of the U.S. team.
OCR for page 50
50 PREPOSITIONING ANTIBIOTICS FOR ANTHRAX early morning (6:15-7:45 AM14 [FDA, 2000a]; 6:00-8:00 AM [Mangold and Goldberg, 1999]). However, Friday evening on March 30 has also been proposed as a date of spore release, based on information provided to Ken Alibek, a former Soviet biological warfare expert, by one of his colleagues (Alibek and Handelman, 1999). In addition, there is no known evidence to exclude the possibility of multiple releases or a prolonged multiday release that encompassed April 2. As noted above, there are great uncertainties surrounding this incident. The committee reviewed three key analyses of inhalational anthrax patients in Sverdlovsk. Microbiology and histopathology are viewed as the diagnostic gold standard for inhalational anthrax in this outbreak. The two pathologists who performed the autopsies in 1979—Faina Abramova and Lev Grinberg—published a report with the U.S. pathologist David Walker on 41 confirmed cases, 30 of which have known dates of onset of symptoms (Abramova et al., 1993). The data show a range of onset of symptoms from 5 to 40 days after the putative release date of April 2, 1979, with a mean incubation period of 16 days (Walker, 2000). Thus, if the anthrax spore release was a single event that occurred on April 2, then the shortest incubation period for any of the 41 autopsy-proven cases was 5 days; if the release date was March 30, then the incubation period may have been as long as 8 days for this patient. Importantly, in its analysis of previous anthrax incidents, the committee required either microbiologic or histopathologic confirmation of infection with B. anthracis when de- termining the minimum incubation period of patients with inhalational anthrax. Using a variety of sources, Meselson and colleagues (1994) assembled data on a set of 77 patients with presumed or confirmed inhalational anthrax, including 66 fatalities. These fatalities include 41 of the 42 au- topsied patients described by Abramova and colleagues (Abramova and Grinberg, 1993; Abramova et al., 1993),15 which are, to the committee’s knowledge, the only cases confirmed by microbiology or histopathology in the paper by Meselson and colleagues (1994). Of the 60 patients with known date of symptom onset, 58 had a reported incubation period of 4 to 43 days, using April 2 as the incident date. For one patient, onset of symptoms is given as 3 days, and for the other remaining patient, onset 14 FDA (2000a), augmented by personal communication by Martin Hugh-Jones in April and June 2011. 15 Later analysis of autopsy material showed that one case was not inhalational anthrax; that case was omitted in Meselson et al. (1994) and Guillemin (1999).
OCR for page 51
51 ANTIBIOTICS FOR ANTHRAX POSTEXPOSURE PROPHYLAXIS of symptoms is given as 2 days.16 Of note, no autopsy histopathology or microbiologic evidence of anthrax infection was reported for either of these patients, and both had an atypically long time interval from reported onset of symptoms until death (6 and 7 days, respectively, compared with the 3 days noted by Meselson et al.,  as the typical time interval between onset and death). Brookmeyer and colleagues (2001) present a statistical analysis of the outbreak, using April 2 as the exposure date and taking into account “trun- cated data” in which the disease course of at least some exposed persons was potentially impacted by public health interventions, such as a short course (about 5 days or possibly longer) of PEP with tetracycline and a live- spore anthrax vaccine. The analysis included 70 cases, all fatal (including the 41 autopsy-confirmed patients described by Abramova and colleagues ). The 29 patients who were not autopsied were presumed to have inhalational anthrax, although microbiologic or other confirmation was lacking (data for these analyses were provided by coauthor Hugh-Jones). Brookmeyer and colleagues (2001) reported median and mean incubation periods of 11.0 and 14.2 days, respectively. Sixty-seven of the 70 fatalities were reported to have an incubation period of 4-40 days. Three of the 70 were reported to have an incubation period of 2-3 days, but again, there was no autopsy or microbiologic confirmation of the diagnosis of anthrax for these patients. Despite the uncertainties and the challenges of obtaining data, there are valuable lessons to be learned from the Sverdlovsk incident. Examples are the apparent rapid progression to death after symptom onset without effective treatment, the existence of a wide range of incubation periods, and the consistent finding of large volumes of pleural fluid that contributed to respiratory failure and death (Walker, 2000). Potential Impact of Anthrax Dose on the Incubation Period in Humans In addition to host factors, the incubation period for inhalational anthrax is impacted by the quantity of spores to which individuals are exposed (Brookmeyer et al., 2001; Inglesby et al., 2002). Estimates of the anthrax dose released in the 1979 Sverdlovsk aerosolization vary widely: 16 One patient is listed in Meselson et al. (1994) as having symptom onset on April 5; however, this date was changed to April 4 in a book by Guillemin (1999) based on interviews of surviving family members in 1992.
OCR for page 58
58 PREPOSITIONING ANTIBIOTICS FOR ANTHRAX Mechanisms of Detection of an Aerosolized Anthrax Attack An aerosolized bioterrorism agent, such as anthrax, may initially be detected by environmental monitoring (e.g., BioWatch sensors, discussed below) or by the identification of one or more symptomatic or fatal human infections (e.g., by syndromic surveillance, by clinical or laboratory diagno- sis, or upon autopsy) (IOM, 2011). The relative timeline of these activities is shown in Figure 2-1; however, the actual timing is variable—from days to weeks depending on the nature of the event and the functionality of the systems. CDC’s Cities Readiness Initiative (see Chapter 3) has set a goal for state and local health departments to have systems in place to complete dispensing of the initial course of PEP antibiotic(s) within 48 hours of the decision to dispense. The potential mechanisms for detection are briefly described here; a more complete review is presented in IOM (2011). BioWatch Environmental Sensor Detection Detection of a biological threat agent via the Department of Homeland Security’s BioWatch air sampling and monitoring system is estimated to take 10 to 34 hours from exposure to discovery (Figure 2-2) (IOM, 2011). Filter units are collected daily; thus, a filter could be collected from 0 to 24 Recovery Aerosol Incubation Exposure Prodrome Illness Release Death BioWatch Syndromic surveillance Case reports from clinicians, laboratories Reports from medical examiners FIGURE 2-1 Schematic illustration of the temporal relation among potential mechanisms for detecting an aerosolized biological threat. The brackets span the interval over which a particular mechanism Figure 2-1.eps would have the potential to detect the presence of a pathogen (e.g., via BioWatch) or illness or death caused by the pathogen. This illustration represents the initial detection of a bioterrorism event. The timeline for detection of subsequent events that are part of the same attack may be compressed because an initial detection is likely to increase attention to the potential threat. SOURCE: IOM, 2011, p. 34. Originally adapted from Sosin, 2008.
OCR for page 59
59 ANTIBIOTICS FOR ANTHRAX POSTEXPOSURE PROPHYLAXIS 2 24 hrs Up to 6 hrs 4 hrs hrs Aerosol collection cycle Filter Primary Full agent- recovery screening specific test panel 10–34 hrs from exposure to discovery Reactive BAR FIGURE 2-2 Event-to-detection timeline for BioWatch Generations 1 and 2. Filter recovery and transport can take up to 4 hours, and Figure 2-2 new primary laboratory screening takes about 6 hours. If the primary screening indicates a positive result, confirmatory testing requires an additional 2 hours. SOURCE: IOM , 2011, p. 54. Originally adapted from Runge, 2008. hours after release of a biological agent. Following collection, it may take up to 10 hours for initial testing to be completed (up to 4 hours for filter recovery from the unit, 6 hours for primary screening, and 2 hours for full agent-specific testing). A BioWatch Actionable Result (BAR) is declared if the filter tests positive for genetic material from a targeted biological agent. BioWatch covers only certain metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs); for security reasons, these locations are not disclosed. A BAR signifies simply that genetic material has been detected on a Biowatch filter, not necessarily that a bioterrorism attack has occurred or that people have been exposed to viable organisms. Factors that might im- mediately be considered include, for example, the number and locations of the BioWatch filters testing positive, intelligence and law enforcement information, evidence of human or animal illnesses consistent with the biological agent detected, and additional environmental testing apart from the BioWatch filters. Thus, it is difficult to predict in advance of a specific event the time period that would be required before the decision to dispense PEP antibiotics could be made by government officials. In the future, detec- tion time could be considerably reduced (to a total of 4 to 6 hours from the current 10 to 34 hours) if “Generation 3” BioWatch sensors, equipped
OCR for page 60
60 PREPOSITIONING ANTIBIOTICS FOR ANTHRAX to conduct automated assays for pathogens, should prove accurate (Garza, 2011). Note that because anthrax is spread environmentally as spores, the rather singular potential exists to determine viability by laboratory culture of spores retrieved from BioWatch filters. If spores are viable and if a pure culture of the organism can be established, antibiotic susceptibility profiles can be determined. (As noted above, however, the decision to respond to the BioWatch signal will likely have been made long before the antibiotic susceptibility profile is available.) Detection by Case Reports from Clinicians or Laboratories As described above, symptoms of inhalational anthrax emerge 4 to 8 days or more after exposure. Therefore, detection of an anthrax attack by clinical diagnosis or laboratory report of inhalational anthrax would come many days following an attack. However, the incubation period of cutaneous anthrax (exposure via skin) is significantly shorter, approxi- mately 1-3 days (CDC, 2002, 2006a; Freedman et al., 2002; Jernigan et al., 2002). The 1979 Sverdlovsk release and the 2001 anthrax attack caused both inhalational and cutaneous forms of the disease (Jernigan et al., 2002, Meselson et al., 1994). This probably would be replicated in any attack using aerosolized anthrax spores. Therefore, detection of an attack based on cases of cutaneous anthrax could occur days before detection based on cases of inhalational anthrax. The typical skin lesions caused by cutaneous anthrax in the initial 1 to 2 days could be caused by a number of different diseases; therefore, in small numbers, they might not be diagnosed immedi- ately as anthrax. In the case of a large-scale attack, however, patients with these lesions might appear in large numbers in emergency departments, raising suspicions and making appropriate diagnosis and detection more likely. Detection of an attack by diagnosis of cutaneous anthrax could enable public health authorities to begin efforts to dispense antibiotics to prevent the more deadly form of the disease and to begin testing the strain for susceptibility to antibiotics. The committee did not review in great detail the processes and timing related to making the decision to begin dispensing antibiotics, which fell outside the scope of its charge. Nevertheless, this is an important issue for MCM planning because delays in decision making due to uncertainty related to the detection mechanisms, political considerations, issues associ- ated with the interaction among multiple levels of government or multiple agencies, or other factors could delay the initiation of dispensing and therefore result in fewer exposed people receiving prophylaxis prior to the onset of symptoms. Improvements in detection capability (either through technological enhancements or through additional clinical familiarity and
OCR for page 61
61 ANTIBIOTICS FOR ANTHRAX POSTEXPOSURE PROPHYLAXIS training) and in decision-making processes would allow more time for dis- tribution and dispensing and, ultimately, shorten the time from exposure to prophylaxis. Finding 2-2: Review of the limited available data on human inhalational anthrax shows that people exposed to aerosolized anthrax have incuba- tion periods of 4 to 8 days or longer. Much of the modeling used to derive shorter estimates is based on data from the Sverdlovsk incident, and the assumptions made potentially lead to an underestimate of the minimum incubation period. With the most probable minimum incubation period being approxi- mately 4 days (or 96 hours), there is no compelling evidence to suggest that jurisdictions must plan to complete dispensing of initial prophylaxis more rapidly than 96 hours following the time of the attack, although incremen- tal improvements appear to be achievable and could provide additional protection against unforeseen delays. Therefore, the current operational goal of the Centers for Disease Con- trol and Prevention’s Cities Readiness Initiative of completing dispensing of initial prophylaxis within 48 hours of the decision to dispense appears to be appropriate, as long as the total time from exposure to prophylaxis does not exceed 96 hours. Achieving this goal depends on robust detection and surveillance systems that can rapidly detect an anthrax attack, rapid decision making, and effective distribution and dispensing systems. If detec- tion or decision making is delayed, faster distribution and dispensing may be needed to minimize symptomatic disease in the exposed population. SUMMARY To be maximally effective in preventing morbidity and mortality, PEP for inhalational anthrax should be administered during the incubation period (before the onset of symptoms). There is, however, great uncertainty around the minimum incubation period for inhalational anthrax. Precise, confirmed data from human infection from the Sverdlovsk incident are incomplete, and data from animal models are of limited relevance as ani- mals exhibit symptoms and succumb to the disease more rapidly than do humans. Many assumptions regarding minimum incubation time in humans are based on modeling. Most anthrax modeling has used data from the Sverdlovsk aerosolized anthrax release and presumes a low-dose exposure. Yet little is known about the details of that release (including the true size of the dose), and the actual date(s) of exposure remain unconfirmed. Most of the available data and modeling suggest that the minimum incubation period for inhalational anthrax in humans is longer than the often-cited 1 to 2 days. Individuals exposed during the 2001 anthrax attack in the
OCR for page 62
62 PREPOSITIONING ANTIBIOTICS FOR ANTHRAX United States had actual or estimated incubation periods of 4 to 10 days, and the PEP experience following this incident suggests that asymptomatic employees who were exposed to an uncertain number of spores and who began prophylaxis with antibiotics 9, 11, and 19 days after exposure (in Washington, DC; New Jersey; and Florida, respectively) were protected. Finally, in considering potential prepositioning strategies, it is critical to take into account the significant material threat posed by antibiotic-resistant strains of anthrax. Timely administration of PEP also hinges on prompt detection and confirmation of the threat through environmental monitoring systems and astute clinical diagnosis and surveillance. REFERENCES Abramova, F., and L. Grinberg. 1993. [Pathology of anthrax sepsis according to materials of the infectious outbreak in 1979 in Sverdlovsk (macroscopic changes)]. Arkh Patol 55(1):12-17. Abramova, F., L. Grinberg, O. Yampolskaya, and D. H. Walker. 1993 (March). Pathology of inhalational anthrax in 42 cases from the Sverdlovsk outbreak of 1979. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 90:2291-2294. Alibek, K., and S. Handelman. 1999. Accident at Sverdlovsk. In Biohazard. New York: Random House Publishing Group. Pp. 70-86. Anaraki, S., S. Addiman, G. Nixon, D. Krahé, R. Ghosh, T. Brooks, G. Lloyd, R. Spencer, A. Walsh, B. McCloskey, and N. Lightfoot. 2008. Investigations and control measures following a case of inhalational anthrax in East London in a drum maker and drummer, October 2008. Eurosurveillance 13(51):733-735. Athamna, A., M. Athamna, N. Abu-Rashed, B. Medlej, D. J. Bast, and E. Rubenstein. 2004. Selection of Bacillus anthracis isolates resistant to antibiotics. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 52(4):424-428. Baccam, P., and M. Boechler. 2007. Public health response to an anthrax attack: An evalu- ation of vaccination policy options. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science 5(1):26-34. Baggett, H. C., J. C. Rhodes, S. K. Fridkin, C. P. Quinn, J. C. Hageman, C. R. Friendman, C. A. Dykewicz, V. A. Semenova, S. Romero-Steiner, C. M. Elie, and J. A. Jernigan. 2005. No evidence of a mild form of inhalational Bacillus anthracis infection during a bioterrorism-related inhalational anthrax outbreak in Washington, D.C., in 2001. Clini- cal Infectious Diseases 41(7):991-997. Bezdenezhnykh, I. S., and V. N. Nikiforov. 1980. Epidemiological analysis of illness from Siberian ulcer (anthrax) in Sverdlovsk. Zh MIkrobiol Epidemiology Immunbiology 5:111-113. Brachman, P. S. 1980. Inhalation anthrax. Annals of the New York Academic of Sciences 353:83-93. Braithwaite, R. S., D. Fridsma, and M. S. Roberts. 2006. The cost-effectiveness of strategies to reduce mortality from an intentional release of aerosolized anthrax spores. Medical Decision Making 26(2):182-193. Brookmeyer, R., and N. Blades. 2002. Prevention of inhalational anthrax in the U.S. outbreak. Science 295(5561):1861. Brookmeyer, R., N. Blades, M. Hugh-Jones, and D. A. Henderson. 2001. The statistical analysis of truncated data: Application to the Sverdlovsk anthrax outbreak. Biostatistics 2(2):233-247.
OCR for page 63
63 ANTIBIOTICS FOR ANTHRAX POSTEXPOSURE PROPHYLAXIS Brookmeyer, R., E. Johnson, and R. Bollinger. 2003. Modeling the optimum duration of antibiotic prophylaxis in an anthrax outbreak. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(7):10129-10132. Brookmeyer, R.. E. Johnson, and R. Bollinger. 2004. Public health vaccination policies for containing an anthrax outbreak. Nature 432:901-904. Brookmeyer, R., E. Johnson, and S. Barry. 2005. Statistics in Medicine 24(4):531-542. Brouillard, J. E., C. M. Terriff, and M. W. Garrison. 2006. Antibiotic selection and resistance issues with fluoroquinolones and doxycycline against bioterrorism agents. Pharmaco- therapy 26(1):3-14. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2002. Suspected cutaneous anthrax in a laboratory worker—Texas, 2002. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 5(13):279-281, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5113a4.htm (accessed July 21, 2011). CDC. 2005. Patient information. Atlanta, GA: CDC, http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/anthrax/ treatment/amoxicillinpatient.asp (accessed July 23, 2011). CDC. 2006a. Fact sheet: Anthrax information for healthcare providers. http://www.bt.cdc. gov/agent/anthrax/anthrax-hcp-factsheet.asp (accessed July 21, 2011). CDC. 2006b. Inhalation anthrax associated with dried animal hides—Pennsylvania and New York City, 2006. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review 55(10):280-282, http://www. cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5510a4.htm (accessed July 25, 2011). CDC. 2010. Use of anthrax vaccine in the United States: Recommendations of the Advi- sory Committee on Immunization Practices. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 59(RR06):1-30, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5906a1.htm (accessed July 19, 2011). Cole, L. 2003. The anthrax letters. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Coleman, M. E., B. Thran, S. S. Morse, M. Hugh-Jones, and S. Massulik. 2008. Inhalational anthrax: Dose response and risk analysis. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science 6(2):147-160. Dewan, P. K., A. M. Fry, K. Laserson, B. C. Tierney, C. P. Quinn, J. A. Hayslett, L. N. Broyles, A. Shane, K. L. Winthrop, I. Walks, L. Siegel, T. Hales, V. A. Semenova, S. Romero-Steiner, C. Elie, R. Khabbaz, A. S. Khan, R. A. Hajjeh, A. Schuchat, and Anthrax Response Team. 2002. Inhalational anthrax outbreak among postal workers, Washington, D.C., 2001. Emerging Infectious Diseases 8(10):1066-1072. DHS (Department of Homeland Security). 2008. Letter from Michael Chertoff to Michael O. Leavitt on determination pursuant to § 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos- metic Act. Washington, DC: DHS, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ofsec_signed_ determination092308.pdf (accessed July 10, 2011). DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency). 1986. Soviet biological warfare threat. DST-1610F-057-86. Arlington, VA: DIA, Pp. 4-7, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB61/ Sverd26.pdf (accessed July 23, 2011). FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 2000a. Transcript: Martin Hugh-Jones remarks to the Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee. Rockville, MD: FDA, http://www.fda.gov/ ohrms/dockets/ac/00/transcripts/3632t1a.pdf (accessed July 23, 2011). Pp. 41-67. FDA. 2000b. Cipro medical review. Rockville, MD: FDA, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ Drugs/EmergencyPreparedness/BioterrorismandDrugPreparedness/UCM130766.pdf (ac- cessed July 23, 2011). FDA. 2002. Guidance for industry: Inhalational anthrax (post-exposure)—developing antimicrobial drugs . Rockville, MD: FDA, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM070986.pdf (accessed July 23, 2011).
OCR for page 64
64 PREPOSITIONING ANTIBIOTICS FOR ANTHRAX FDA. 2004. A pproval letter for post-exposure prophylaxis in adults (levofloxacin) . Rockville, MD: FDA, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/EmergencyPreparedness/ BioterrorismandDrugPreparedness/UCM133680.pdf (accessed July 23, 2011). FDA. 2008a. Approval letter for post-exposure prophylaxis in pediatric patients (levofloxacin). Rockville, MD: FDA, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/summary_ review/2008/020634se5-047,020635se5-051,021721se5-015_SUMR.pdf (accessed July 23, 2011). FDA. 2008b. Levofloxacin label. Rockville, MD: FDA, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ EmergencyPreparedness/BioterrorismandDrugPreparedness/UCM133684.pdf (accessed July 23, 2011). FDA. 2009. List of published literature relied on in issuing the Federal Register notice on doxycycline and penicillin g procaine administration for inhalational anthrax (post- exposure). Rockville, MD: FDA, http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/EmergencyPreparedness/ BioterrorismandDrugPreparedness/ucm131010.htm (accessed July 23, 2011). FDA. 2010. Pathway to licensure for protective antigen-based anthrax vaccines for a post- exposure prophylaxis indication using the Animal Rule. Silver Spring, MD: FDA, h ttp://www.fda.gov/downloads/advisorycommittees/committeesmeetingmaterials/ bloodvaccinesandotherbiologics/vaccinesandrelatedbiologicalproductsadvisorycommittee/ ucm232400.pdf (accessed August 12, 2011). FDA. 2011. Drugs: Anthrax. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/EmergencyPreparedness/Bioterrorism andDrugPreparedness/ucm063485.htm (accessed July 28, 2011). Fowler, R. A., G. D. Sanders, D. M. Bravata, B. Nouri, J. M. Gastwirth, D. Peterson, A. G. Broker, A. M. Garber, and D. K. Owens. 2005. Cost-effectiveness of defending against bioterrorism: a comparison of vaccination and antibiotic prophylaxis against anthrax. Annals of Internal Medicine 142(8):601-610. Freedman, A., O. Afonja, M. Wu Chang, F. Mostashari, M. Blaser, G. Perez-Perez, H. Lazarus, R. Schacht, J. Guttenberg, M. Traister, and W. Borkowsky. 2002. Cutaneous anthrax associated with microangiopathic hemolytic anemia and coagulopathy in a 7-month-old infant. Journal of the American Medical Association 287(2):869-874. Friedlander, A. 2000. Non-human primate model of inhalational anthrax. Slides presented at the FDA Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting, Pediatric Subcommittee, Rockville, MD, July 28, http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/00/slides/3632s1_05.pdf (accessed July 20, 2011). Friedlander, A. M., S. L. Welkos, M. L. Pitt, J. W. Ezzell, P. L. Worsham, K. J. Rose, B. E. Ivins, J. R. Lowe, G. B. Howe, and P. Mikesell. 1993. Postexposure prophylaxis against experimental inhalation anthrax. Journal of Infectious Diseases 167(5):1239-1243. GAO (Government Accountability Office). 2009. Project BioShield Act: HHS has supported development, procurement, and emergency use of medical countermeasures to address health threats. Washington, DC: GAO, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09878r.pdf (ac- cessed August 22, 2011). Garza, A. 2011. Testimony given to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Homeland Security. 112th Cong, 1st Sess. March 17, http://homeland.house.gov/sites/ homeland.house.gov/files/Testimony%20Garza.pdf (accessed July 11, 2011). Goossens, P. L. 2009. Animal models of human anthrax: The quest for the Holy Grail. Molecular Aspects of Medicine 30(6):467-480. Greene, C. M., J. Reefhuis, C. Tan, A. E. Fiore, S. Goldstein, M. J. Beach, S. C. Redd, D. Valiante, G. Burr, J. Buehler, R. W. Pinner, E. Bresnitz, and B. P. Bell; CDC New Jersey Anthrax Investigation Team. 2002. Epidemiologic investigations of bioterrorism-related anthrax, New Jersey, 2001. Emerging Infectious Diseases 8(10):1048-1055. Guillemin, J. 1999. Anthrax: The investigation of a deadly outbreak. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
OCR for page 65
65 ANTIBIOTICS FOR ANTHRAX POSTEXPOSURE PROPHYLAXIS Guillemin, J. 2011. American anthrax: Fear, crime, and the nation’s deadliest bioterror attack. New York: Macmillan/Holt. Holty, J. E., D. M. Bravata, H. Liu, R. A. Olshen, K. M. McDonald, and D. K. Owens. 2006. Systematic review: A century of inhalational anthrax cases from 1900-2005. Annals of Internal Medicine 144(4):270-280. Hugh-Jones, M. 2011 (unpublished). Anthrax. In Beyond anthrax, edited by L. Lutwick and S. Lutwick. Hupert, N., D. Wattson, J. Cuomo, E. Hollingsworth, K. Neukermans, and W. Xiong. 2009. Predicting hospital surge after a large scale anthrax attack: A model-based analysis of CDC’s CRI prophylaxis recommendations. Medical Decision Making 29(4):424-437. Inglesby, T. V., T. O’Toole, D. A. Henderson, J. G. Bartlett, M. S. Ascher, E. Eitzen, A. M. Friedlander, J. Gerberding, J. Hauer, J. Hughes, J. McDade, M. T. Osterholm, G. Parker, T. M. Perl, P. K. Russell, and K. Tonat; Working Group on Civilian Biodefense. 2002. Anthrax as a biological weapon, 2002: Updated recommendations for management. Journal of the American Medical Association 287(17):2236-2252. IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2011. BioWatch and public health surveillance: Evaluating sys- tems for the early detection of biological threats, abbreviated version. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Jackson, P., M. Hugh-Jones, D. Adair, G. Green, K. Hill, C. Kuske, L. Grinberg, F. Abramova, and P. Keim. 1998. PCR analysis of tissue samples from the 1979 Sverdlovsk anthrax victims: The presence of multiple Bacillus anthracis strains in different victims. Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences 95(3):1224-1229. Jernigan, J. A., D. S. Stephens, D.A. Ashford, C. Omenaca, M. S. Topiel, M. Galbraith, M. Tapper, T. L. Fisk, S. Zaki, T. Popovic, R. F. Meyer, C. P. Quinn, S. A. Harper, S. K. Fridkin, J. J. Sejvar, C. W. Shepard, M. McConnell, J. Guarner, W. J. Shieh, J. M. Malecki, J. L. Gerberding, J. M. Hughes, and B. A. Perkins; Anthrax Bioterrorism Investi- gation Team. 2001. Bioterrorism-related inhalational anthrax: The first 10 cases reported in the United States. Emerging Infectious Diseases 7(6):933-944. Jernigan, D. B., P. L. Raghunathan, B. P. Bell, R. Brechner, E. A. Bresnitz, J. C. Butler, M. Cetron, M. Cohen, T. Doyle, M. Fischer, C. Greene, K. S. Griffith, J. Guarner, J. L. Hadler, J. A. Hayslett, R. Meyer, L. R. Petersen, M. Phillips, R. Pinner, T. Popovic, C. P. Quinn, J. Reefhuis, D. Reissman, N. Rosenstein, A. Schuchat, W.-J. Shieh, L. Siegal, D. L. Swerdlow, F. C. Tenover, M. Traeger, J. W. Ward, I. Weisfuse, S. Wiersma, K. Yeskey, S. Zaki, D. A. Ashford, B. A. Perkins, S. Ostroff, J. Hughes, D. Fleming, J. P. Koplan, J. L. Gerberding, and the National Anthrax Epidemiologic Investigation Team. 2002. Inves- tigation of bioterrorism-related anthrax, United States, 2001: Epidemiologic findings. Emerging Infectious Diseases 8(10):1019-1028. Lucey, D. R. 2005. Anthrax as bioterrorism. In Principles and practices of infectious diseases, 6th ed., edited by G. Mandell, J. Bennett, and R. Dolin. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Inc. Pp. 3618-3624. Lucey, D. R. 2007. Anthrax. In Cecil medicine, 23rd ed., edited by L. Goldman and D. A. Ausiello. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier, Pp. 2197-2200. Mangold, T., and J. Goldberg. 1999. Plague wars: The terrifying reality of biological warfare. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Meselson, M. S. 1988. The biological weapons convention and the Sverdlovsk anthrax out- break of 1979. Journal of the Federation of American Scientists Public Interest Report 41(7):1-6. Meselson, M. 2001. Note on source strength. Applied Science and Analysis Newsletter 87(1):10-12.
OCR for page 66
66 PREPOSITIONING ANTIBIOTICS FOR ANTHRAX Meselson, M., J. Guillemin, M. Hugh-Jones, A. Langmuir, I. Popova, A. Shelekov, and O. Yampolskaya. 1994. The Sverdlovsk anthrax outbreak of 1979. Science 266(5188):1202-1208. Meyerhoff, A., and D. Murphy. 2002. Guidelines for treatment of anthrax. Journal of the American Medical Association 288(15):1848-1849. Miller, J., W. Broad, and S. Engleberg. 2001. Germs: Biological weapons and America’s secret war. New York: Simon and Schuster Adult Publishing Group. Minnesota Department of Health. 2011a (August 9). Health officials investigate case of inhalational anthrax from suspected natural environmental exposure. St. Paul, MD: Minnesota Department of Health, http://www.health.state.mn.us/news/pressrel/2011/ anthrax080911.html (accessed September 2, 2011). Minnesota Department of Health. 2011b (August 26). Health officials update information on anthrax case. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Health, http://www.health.state. mn.us/news/pressrel/2011/anthrax082611.html (accessed September 2, 2011). Norris, C. N. 2009. Inquiry under the Fatal Accidents and Inquiries (Scotland) Act 1976, Sheriff Court of Lothian and Borders. www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/NORRIS.html (accessed August 12, 2011). Plotkin, S. A., P. S. Brachman, M. Utell, F. H. Bumford, and M. M. Atchison. 1960. An epi- demic of inhalational anthrax, the first in the twentieth century: I. The Clinical features. American Journal of Medicine 29(6):992-1001. Price, L., A. Vogler, T. Pearson, J. Busch, J. Schupp, and P. Keim. 2003. In vitro selection and characterization of Bacillus anthracis mutants with high-level resistance to ciprofloxacin. Antimicrobial Agents Chemotherapy 47(7):2362-2365. Rickmeier, G. L., G. E. McClellan, and G. A. Anno. 2001. Biological warfare human response modeling. Military Operations Research 6(3):35-58. Runge, J. W. 2008 (July 30-31). Effectiveness of national biosurveillance systems: BioWatch and the public health system. Slides and remarks presented to the Institute of Medicine Committee on Effectiveness of National Biosurveillance Systems: BioWatch and the Public Health System, Meeting 1, Washington, DC. Sosin, D. 2008 (July 30-31). National biosurveillance for human health. Slides presented to the Institute of Medicine Committee on Effectiveness of National Biosurveillance Systems: BioWatch and the Public Health System, Meeting 1, Washington, DC. Stepanov, A. V., L. Marinin, A. Pomerantsev, and N. Staritsin. 1996. Development of novel vaccines against anthrax in man. Journal of Biotechnology 44(1-3):155-160. Stern, E. J., K. B. Uhde, S. V. Shadomy, and N. Messonnier. 2008. Conference report on public health and clinical guidelines for anthrax. Emerging Infectious Diseases 14(4), http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/14/4/07-0969_article.htm (accessed December 6, 2011). Thomas, R., C. Davies, A. Nunez, S. Hibbs, H. Flick-Smith, L. Eastaugh, S. Smither, A. Gates, P. Oyston, T. Atkins, and S. Eley. 2010. Influence of particle size on the pathology and efficacy of vaccination in a murine model of inhalational anthrax. Journal of Medical Microbiology 59(Pt. 12):1415-1427. Traeger, M. S., S. T. Wiersma, N. E. Rosenstein, J. M. Malecki, C. W. Shepard, P. L. Raghunathan, S. P. Pillai, T. Popovic, C. P. Quinn, R. F. Meyer, S. R. Zaki, S. Kumar, S. M. Bruce, J. J. Sejvar, P. M. Dull, B. C. Tierney, J. D. Jones, B. A. Perkins, and the Florida Investigation Team. 2002. First case of bioterrorism-related inhalational anthrax in the United States, Palm Beach County, Florida, 2001. Emerging Infectious Diseases 8(10):1029-1034. Vasconcelos, D., R. Barnewall, M. Babin, R. Hunt, J. Estep, C. Nielsen, R. Carnes, and J. Carney. 2003. Pathology of inhalation anthrax in cynomolgus monkeys (Macaca fascicularis). Laboratory Investigation 83(8):1201-1209.
OCR for page 67
67 ANTIBIOTICS FOR ANTHRAX POSTEXPOSURE PROPHYLAXIS Walker, D. 2000 (July 28). Human pathology inhalational disease. Slides presented at the FDA Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting, Pediatric Subcommittee, Rockville, MD, http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/00/slides/3632s1_04.pdf (accessed July 20, 2011). Walker, D., O. Yampolskaya, and L. Grinberg. 1994. Death at Sverdlovsk: What have we learned? American Journal of Pathology 144(6):1135-1141. Walsh, J. J., N. Pesik, C. P. Quinn, V. Urdaneta, C. A. Dykewicz, A. E. Boyer, J. Guarner, P. Wilkins, K. J. Norville, J. R. Barr, S. R. Zaki, J. B. Patel, S. P. Reagan, J. L. Pirkle, T. A. Treadwell, N. R. Messonnier, L. D. Rotz, R. F. Meyer, and D. S. Stephens. 2007. A case of naturally acquired inhalation anthrax: Clinical care and analyses of anti-protective antigen Immunoglobulin G and lethal factor. Clinical Infectious Diseases 44(7):968-971. Wein, L. M., and D. L. Craft. 2005. Evaluation of public health interventions for anthrax: A report to the Secretary’s Council on Public Health Preparedness. Biosecurity and Bio- terrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science 3(4):348-356. Wein, L. M., D. L. Craft, and E. H. Kaplan. 2003. Emergency response to an anthrax attack. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(7):4346-4351. Weiss, S., D. Kobiler, H. Levy, A. Pass, Y. Ophir, N. Rothschild, A. Tal, J. Schlomovitz, and Z. Altboum. 2011. Antibiotics cure anthrax in animal models. Antimicrobial Agents Chemotherapy 55(4):1533-1542. Wilkening, D. A. 2006. Sverdlovsk revisited: Modeling human inhalation anthrax. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103(20):7589-7594. Wilkening, D. A. 2008. Modeling the incubation period of inhalational anthrax. Medical Decision Making 28(4):593-605. Zaric, G. S., D. M. Bravata, J. E. Cleophas Holty, K. M. McDonald, D. K. Owens, and M. L. Brandeau. 2008. Modeling the logistics of response to anthrax bioterrorism. Medical Decision Making 28(3):332-350. Zaucha, G. M., L. M. Pitt, J. Estep, B. E. Ivins, and A. M. Friedlander. 1998. Pathology of experimental anthrax in rabbits exposed to inhalation and subcutaneous inoculation. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine 122(11):982-992.
OCR for page 68