Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 48
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 78(6): 1451-1457, 2024 Jun 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38412060

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The high mortality of systemic anthrax is likely a consequence of the severe central nervous system inflammation that occurs in anthrax meningitis. Effective treatment of such infections requires, at a minimum, adequate cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) antimicrobial concentrations. METHODS: We reviewed English medical literature and regulatory documents to extract information on serum and CSF exposures for antimicrobials with in vitro activity against Bacillus anthracis. Using CSF pharmacokinetic exposures and in vitro B. anthracis susceptibility data, we used population pharmacokinetic modeling and Monte Carlo simulations to determine whether a specific antimicrobial dosage would likely achieve effective CSF antimicrobial activity in patients with normal to inflamed meninges (ie, an intact to markedly disrupted blood-brain barrier). RESULTS: The probability of microbiologic success at achievable antimicrobial dosages was high (≥95%) for ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin (500 mg every 12 hours), meropenem, imipenem/cilastatin, penicillin G, ampicillin, ampicillin/sulbactam, doxycycline, and minocycline; acceptable (90%-95%) for piperacillin/tazobactam and levofloxacin (750 mg every 24 hours); and low (<90%) for vancomycin, amikacin, clindamycin, and linezolid. CONCLUSIONS: Prompt empiric antimicrobial therapy of patients with suspected or confirmed anthrax meningitis may reduce the high morbidity and mortality. Our data support using several ß-lactam-, fluoroquinolone-, and tetracycline-class antimicrobials as first-line and alternative agents for treatment of patients with anthrax meningitis; all should achieve effective microbiologic exposures. Our data suggest antimicrobials that should not be relied on to treat suspected or documented anthrax meningitis. Furthermore, the protein synthesis inhibitors clindamycin and linezolid can decrease toxin production and may be useful components of combination therapy.


Assuntos
Antraz , Antibacterianos , Bacillus anthracis , Meningites Bacterianas , Humanos , Bacillus anthracis/efeitos dos fármacos , Antraz/tratamento farmacológico , Meningites Bacterianas/tratamento farmacológico , Meningites Bacterianas/microbiologia , Meningites Bacterianas/líquido cefalorraquidiano , Antibacterianos/farmacocinética , Antibacterianos/administração & dosagem , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Método de Monte Carlo , Testes de Sensibilidade Microbiana
2.
MMWR Recomm Rep ; 72(6): 1-47, 2023 11 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37963097

RESUMO

This report updates previous CDC guidelines and recommendations on preferred prevention and treatment regimens regarding naturally occurring anthrax. Also provided are a wide range of alternative regimens to first-line antimicrobial drugs for use if patients have contraindications or intolerances or after a wide-area aerosol release of: Bacillus anthracis spores if resources become limited or a multidrug-resistant B. anthracis strain is used (Hendricks KA, Wright ME, Shadomy SV, et al.; Workgroup on Anthrax Clinical Guidelines. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expert panel meetings on prevention and treatment of anthrax in adults. Emerg Infect Dis 2014;20:e130687; Meaney-Delman D, Rasmussen SA, Beigi RH, et al. Prophylaxis and treatment of anthrax in pregnant women. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:885-900; Bradley JS, Peacock G, Krug SE, et al. Pediatric anthrax clinical management. Pediatrics 2014;133:e1411-36). Specifically, this report updates antimicrobial drug and antitoxin use for both postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) and treatment from these previous guidelines best practices and is based on systematic reviews of the literature regarding 1) in vitro antimicrobial drug activity against B. anthracis; 2) in vivo antimicrobial drug efficacy for PEP and treatment; 3) in vivo and human antitoxin efficacy for PEP, treatment, or both; and 4) human survival after antimicrobial drug PEP and treatment of localized anthrax, systemic anthrax, and anthrax meningitis. Changes from previous CDC guidelines and recommendations include an expanded list of alternative antimicrobial drugs to use when first-line antimicrobial drugs are contraindicated or not tolerated or after a bioterrorism event when first-line antimicrobial drugs are depleted or ineffective against a genetically engineered resistant: B. anthracis strain. In addition, these updated guidelines include new recommendations regarding special considerations for the diagnosis and treatment of anthrax meningitis, including comorbid, social, and clinical predictors of anthrax meningitis. The previously published CDC guidelines and recommendations described potentially beneficial critical care measures and clinical assessment tools and procedures for persons with anthrax, which have not changed and are not addressed in this update. In addition, no changes were made to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations for use of anthrax vaccine (Bower WA, Schiffer J, Atmar RL, et al. Use of anthrax vaccine in the United States: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, 2019. MMWR Recomm Rep 2019;68[No. RR-4]:1-14). The updated guidelines in this report can be used by health care providers to prevent and treat anthrax and guide emergency preparedness officials and planners as they develop and update plans for a wide-area aerosol release of B. anthracis.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra Antraz , Antraz , Anti-Infecciosos , Antitoxinas , Bacillus anthracis , Meningite , Adulto , Humanos , Feminino , Criança , Gravidez , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Antraz/diagnóstico , Antraz/tratamento farmacológico , Antraz/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra Antraz/uso terapêutico , Vacinas contra Antraz/efeitos adversos , Anti-Infecciosos/uso terapêutico , Antitoxinas/farmacologia , Antitoxinas/uso terapêutico , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Aerossóis/farmacologia , Aerossóis/uso terapêutico , Meningite/induzido quimicamente , Meningite/tratamento farmacológico
3.
Clin Infect Dis ; 75(Suppl 3): S441-S450, 2022 10 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36251555

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: In 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. CONCLUSIONS: These data illustrate the relative therapeutic benefit of the 3 antitoxins and provide a rationale to prioritize their deployment.


Assuntos
Antraz , Antitoxinas , Bacillus anthracis , Animais , Antraz/tratamento farmacológico , Antraz/prevenção & controle , Antígenos de Bactérias , Antitoxinas/uso terapêutico , Exotoxinas , Coelhos
4.
Clin Infect Dis ; 75(Suppl 3): S451-S458, 2022 10 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36251558

RESUMO

The neurological sequelae of Bacillus anthracis infection include a rapidly progressive fulminant meningoencephalitis frequently associated with intracranial hemorrhage, including subarachnoid and intracerebral hemorrhage. Higher mortality than other forms of bacterial meningitis suggests that antimicrobials and cardiopulmonary support alone may be insufficient and that strategies targeting the hemorrhage might improve outcomes. In this review, we describe the toxic role of intracranial hemorrhage in anthrax meningoencephalitis. We first examine the high incidence of intracranial hemorrhage in patients with anthrax meningoencephalitis. We then review common diseases that present with intracranial hemorrhage, including aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage and spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage, postulating applicability of established and potential neurointensive treatments to the multimodal management of hemorrhagic anthrax meningoencephalitis. Finally, we examine the therapeutic potential of minocycline, an antimicrobial that is effective against B. anthracis and that has been shown in preclinical studies to have neuroprotective properties, which thus might be repurposed for this historically fatal disease.


Assuntos
Antraz , Bacillus anthracis , Meningoencefalite , Antraz/complicações , Antraz/tratamento farmacológico , Antraz/epidemiologia , Hemorragia Cerebral/complicações , Humanos , Meningoencefalite/complicações , Meningoencefalite/tratamento farmacológico , Meningoencefalite/microbiologia , Minociclina/uso terapêutico
5.
Clin Infect Dis ; 75(Suppl 3): S392-S401, 2022 10 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36251553

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Bacillus anthracis can cause anthrax and is a potential bioterrorism agent. The 2014 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations for medical countermeasures against anthrax were based on in vitro data and expert opinion. However, a century of previously uncompiled observational human data that often includes treatment and outcomes is available in the literature for analysis. METHODS: We reviewed treatment outcomes for patients hospitalized with anthrax. We stratified patients by meningitis status, route of infection, and systemic criteria, then analyzed survival by treatment type, including antimicrobials, antitoxin/antiserum, and steroids. Using logistic regression, we calculated odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals to compare survival between treatments. We also calculated hospital length of stay. Finally, we evaluated antimicrobial postexposure prophylaxis (PEPAbx) using data from a 1970 Russian-language article. RESULTS: We identified 965 anthrax patients reported from 1880 through 2018. After exclusions, 605 remained: 430 adults, 145 children, and 30 missing age. Survival was low for untreated patients and meningitis patients, regardless of treatment. Most patients with localized cutaneous or nonmeningitis systemic anthrax survived with 1 or more antimicrobials; patients with inhalation anthrax without meningitis fared better with at least 2. Bactericidal antimicrobials were effective for systemic anthrax; addition of a protein synthesis inhibitor(s) (PSI) to a bactericidal antimicrobial(s) did not improve survival. Likewise, addition of antitoxin/antiserum to antimicrobials did not improve survival. Mannitol improved survival for meningitis patients, but steroids did not. PEPAbx reduced risk of anthrax following exposure to B. anthracis. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy appeared to be superior to monotherapy for inhalation anthrax without meningitis. For anthrax meningitis, neither monotherapy nor combination therapy were particularly effective; however, numbers were small. For localized cutaneous anthrax, monotherapy was sufficient. For B. anthracis exposures, PEPAbx was effective.


Assuntos
Antraz , Anti-Infecciosos , Antitoxinas , Bacillus anthracis , Adulto , Antraz/tratamento farmacológico , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Anti-Infecciosos/uso terapêutico , Antitoxinas/uso terapêutico , Armas Biológicas , Bioterrorismo , Criança , Hospitais , Humanos , Manitol/uso terapêutico , Inibidores da Síntese de Proteínas/uso terapêutico , Infecções Respiratórias , Resultado do Tratamento
6.
Clin Infect Dis ; 75(Suppl 3): S468-S477, 2022 10 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36251554

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: During an anthrax mass casualty event, prompt identification of patients with anthrax meningitis is important. Previous research has suggested use of a screening tool based on neurological symptoms and signs. METHODS: Using historical anthrax patient data from 1880 through 2018, we analyzed risk factors for meningitis. We developed lists of symptoms and signs (ie, algorithms) for predicting meningitis with high sensitivity and specificity. We evaluated both single and paired algorithms as screening tools. RESULTS: A single algorithm with 1 or more neurological symptoms or signs identifying patients with likely meningitis achieved high sensitivity (86%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 71%-100%) and specificity (90%; 95% CI, 82%-98%). Pairing algorithms with the same symptoms and signs (severe headache, altered mental status, meningeal signs, and "other neurological deficits") improved specificity (99%; 95% CI, 97%-100%) but left 17.3% of patients in a middle "indeterminate" meningitis category and in need of additional diagnostic testing to determine likely meningitis status. Pairing algorithms with differing symptoms and signs also improved specificity over the single algorithm (92%; 95% CI, 85%-99%) but categorized just 2.5% of patients as indeterminate. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms prior research suggesting quick and reliable assessment of patients for anthrax meningitis is possible based on the presence or absence of certain symptoms and signs. A single algorithm was adequate; however, if we assumed low-resource diagnostic testing was feasible for some patients, pairing algorithms improved specificity. Pairing algorithms with differing symptoms and signs minimized the proportion of patients requiring additional diagnostics.


Assuntos
Antraz , Incidentes com Feridos em Massa , Meningites Bacterianas , Algoritmos , Antraz/diagnóstico , Humanos , Meningites Bacterianas/diagnóstico
7.
Clin Infect Dis ; 75(Suppl 3): S459-S467, 2022 10 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36251551

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous anthrax accounts for approximately 95% of anthrax cases worldwide. About 24% of untreated patients die, and many cases are complicated by meningitis. Here, we explore clinical features of cutaneous disease associated with poor outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review identified 303 full-text articles published from 1950 through 2018 that met predefined inclusion criteria. Cases were abstracted, and descriptive analyses and univariate logistic regression were conducted to identify prognostic indicators for cutaneous anthrax. RESULTS: Of 182 included patients, 47 (25.8%) died. Previously reported independent predictors for death or meningitis that we confirmed included fever or chills; nausea or vomiting; headache; severe headache; nonheadache, nonmeningeal signs; leukocytosis; and bacteremia. Newly identified predictors included anxiety, abdominal pain, diastolic hypotension, skin trauma, thoracic edema, malignant pustule edema, lymphadenopathy, and evidence of coagulopathy (all with P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: We identified patient presentations not previously associated with poor outcomes.


Assuntos
Antraz , Meningite , Dermatopatias Bacterianas , Adulto , Antraz/diagnóstico , Cefaleia , Humanos , Fatores de Risco , Dermatopatias Bacterianas/tratamento farmacológico
8.
Clin Infect Dis ; 75(Suppl 3): S341-S353, 2022 10 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36251560

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Anthrax is a toxin-mediated zoonotic disease caused by Bacillus anthracis, with a worldwide distribution recognized for millennia. Bacillus anthracis is considered a potential biowarfare agent. METHODS: We completed a systematic review for clinical and demographic characteristics of adults and children hospitalized with anthrax (cutaneous, inhalation, ingestion, injection [from contaminated heroin], primary meningitis) abstracted from published case reports, case series, and line lists in English from 1880 through 2018, assessing treatment impact by type and severity of disease. We analyzed geographic distribution, route of infection, exposure to anthrax, and incubation period. RESULTS: Data on 764 adults and 167 children were reviewed. Most cases reported for 1880 through 1915 were from Europe; those for 1916 through 1950 were from North America; and from 1951 on, cases were from Asia. Cutaneous was the most common form of anthrax for all populations. Since 1960, adult anthrax mortality has ranged from 31% for cutaneous to 90% for primary meningitis. Median incubation periods ranged from 1 day (interquartile range [IQR], 0-4) for injection to 7 days (IQR, 4-9) for inhalation anthrax. Most patients with inhalation anthrax developed pleural effusions and more than half with ingestion anthrax developed ascites. Treatment and critical care advances have improved survival for those with systemic symptoms, from approximately 30% in those untreated to approximately 70% in those receiving antimicrobials or antiserum/antitoxin. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides an improved evidence base for both clinical care of individual anthrax patients and public health planning for wide-area aerosol releases of B. anthracis spores.


Assuntos
Antraz , Antitoxinas , Bacillus anthracis , Adulto , Aerossóis , Antraz/diagnóstico , Antraz/epidemiologia , Armas Biológicas , Criança , Heroína/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Infecções Respiratórias
9.
Clin Infect Dis ; 75(Suppl 3): S379-S391, 2022 10 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36251546

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Anthrax is endemic to many countries, including the United States. The causative agent, Bacillus anthracis, poses a global bioterrorism threat. Without effective antimicrobial postexposure prophylaxis (PEPAbx) and treatment, the mortality of systemic anthrax is high. To inform clinical guidelines for PEPAbx and treatment of B. anthracis infections in humans, we systematically evaluated animal anthrax treatment model studies. METHODS: We searched for survival outcome data in 9 scientific search engines for articles describing antimicrobial PEPAbx or treatment of anthrax in animals in any language through February 2019. We performed meta-analyses of efficacy of antimicrobial PEPAbx and treatment for each drug or drug combination using random-effects models. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships were developed for 5 antimicrobials with available pharmacokinetic data. Monte Carlo simulations were used to predict unbound drug exposures in humans. RESULTS: We synthesized data from 34 peer-reviewed studies with 3262 animals. For PEPAbx and treatment of infection by susceptible B. anthracis, effective monotherapy can be accomplished with fluoroquinolones, tetracyclines, ß-lactams (including penicillin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, and imipenem-cilastatin), and lipopeptides or glycopeptides. For naturally occurring strains, unbound drug exposures in humans were predicted to adequately cover the minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs; those required to inhibit the growth of 50% or 90% of organisms [MIC50 or MIC90]) for ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, and doxycycline for both the PEPAbx and treatment targets. Dalbavancin covered its MIC50 for PEPAbx. CONCLUSIONS: These animal studies show many reviewed antimicrobials are good choices for PEPAbx or treatment of susceptible B. anthracis strains, and some are also promising options for combating resistant strains. Monte Carlo simulations suggest that oral ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, and doxycycline are particularly robust choices for PEPAbx or treatment.


Assuntos
Antraz , Anti-Infecciosos , Bacillus anthracis , Combinação Amoxicilina e Clavulanato de Potássio/uso terapêutico , Animais , Antraz/tratamento farmacológico , Antraz/prevenção & controle , Antibacterianos/farmacologia , Anti-Infecciosos/uso terapêutico , Combinação Imipenem e Cilastatina/farmacologia , Combinação Imipenem e Cilastatina/uso terapêutico , Ciprofloxacina/uso terapêutico , Doxiciclina/uso terapêutico , Glicopeptídeos/farmacologia , Glicopeptídeos/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Levofloxacino/uso terapêutico , Lipopeptídeos/farmacologia , Lipopeptídeos/uso terapêutico , Modelos Animais , Tetraciclinas/uso terapêutico , Estados Unidos , beta-Lactamas/uso terapêutico
10.
Clin Infect Dis ; 75(Suppl 3): S373-S378, 2022 10 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36251548

RESUMO

Bacillus anthracis, the causative agent of anthrax, is a high-consequence bacterial pathogen that occurs naturally in many parts of the world and is considered an agent of biowarfare or bioterrorism. Understanding antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of B. anthracis isolates is foundational to treating naturally occurring outbreaks and to public health preparedness in the event of an intentional release. In this systematic review, we searched the peer-reviewed literature for all publications detailing antimicrobial susceptibility testing of B. anthracis. Within the set of discovered articles, we collated a subset of publications detailing susceptibility testing that followed standardized protocols for Food and Drug Administration-approved, commercially available antimicrobials. We analyzed the findings from the discovered articles, including the reported minimal inhibitory concentrations. Across the literature, most B. anthracis isolates were reported as susceptible to current first-line antimicrobials recommended for postexposure prophylaxis and treatment. The data presented for potential alternative antimicrobials will be of use if significant resistance to first-line antimicrobials arises, the strain is bioengineered, or first-line antimicrobials are not tolerated or available.


Assuntos
Antraz , Anti-Infecciosos , Bacillus anthracis , Antraz/epidemiologia , Anti-Infecciosos/uso terapêutico , Bioterrorismo , Humanos , Testes de Sensibilidade Microbiana
11.
Clin Infect Dis ; 75(Suppl 3): S478-S486, 2022 10 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36251556

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines currently recommend triple-therapy antimicrobial treatment for anthrax meningitis. In the Kyrgyz Republic, a country with endemic anthrax, cutaneous anthrax patients are routinely hospitalized and treated successfully with only monotherapy or dual therapy. Clinical algorithms have been developed to identify patients with likely anthrax meningitis based on signs and symptoms alone. We sought to retrospectively identify likely meningitis patients in the Kyrgyz Republic using a clinical algorithm and evaluate risk factors and their outcomes by type of treatment. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of cutaneous anthrax patients in the Kyrgyz Republic from 2005 through 2012. Using previous methods, we developed a highly specific algorithm to categorize patients by meningitis status. We then evaluated patient risk factors, treatments, and outcomes by disease severity and meningitis status. RESULTS: We categorized 37 of 230 cutaneous anthrax patients as likely having meningitis. All 37 likely meningitis patients survived, receiving only mono- or dual-therapy antimicrobials. We identified underlying medical conditions, such as obesity, hypertension, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and tobacco and alcohol use, as potential risk factors for severe anthrax and anthrax meningitis. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our analyses, treatment of anthrax meningitis may not require 3 antimicrobials, which could impact future anthrax treatment recommendations. In addition, chronic comorbidities may increase risk for severe anthrax and anthrax meningitis. Future research should further investigate potential risk factors for severe anthrax and their impact on laboratory-confirmed meningitis and evaluate mono- and dual-therapy antimicrobial regimens for anthrax meningitis.


Assuntos
Antraz , Anti-Infecciosos , Meningites Bacterianas , Algoritmos , Antraz/diagnóstico , Antraz/tratamento farmacológico , Antraz/epidemiologia , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Anti-Infecciosos/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Quirguistão/epidemiologia , Meningites Bacterianas/diagnóstico , Meningites Bacterianas/tratamento farmacológico , Meningites Bacterianas/epidemiologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Risco , Dermatopatias Bacterianas , Resultado do Tratamento
12.
Clin Infect Dis ; 75(Suppl 3): S354-S363, 2022 10 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36251561

RESUMO

Bacillus anthracis has traditionally been considered the etiologic agent of anthrax. However, anthrax-like illness has been documented in welders and other metal workers infected with Bacillus cereus group spp. harboring pXO1 virulence genes that produce anthrax toxins. We present 2 recent cases of severe pneumonia in welders with B. cereus group infections and discuss potential risk factors for infection and treatment options, including antitoxin.


Assuntos
Antraz , Antitoxinas , Bacillus anthracis , Antraz/diagnóstico , Antraz/tratamento farmacológico , Bacillus anthracis/genética , Bacillus cereus/genética , Humanos , Ferreiros , Plasmídeos
13.
MMWR Recomm Rep ; 68(4): 1-14, 2019 12 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31834290

RESUMO

This report updates the 2009 recommendations from the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding use of anthrax vaccine in the United States (Wright JG, Quinn CP, Shadomy S, Messonnier N. Use of anthrax vaccine in the United States: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP)], 2009. MMWR Recomm Rep 2010;59[No. RR-6]). The report 1) summarizes data on estimated efficacy in humans using a correlates of protection model and safety data published since the last ACIP review, 2) provides updated guidance for use of anthrax vaccine adsorbed (AVA) for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and in conjunction with antimicrobials for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP), 3) provides updated guidance regarding PrEP vaccination of emergency and other responders, 4) summarizes the available data on an investigational anthrax vaccine (AV7909), and 5) discusses the use of anthrax antitoxins for PEP. Changes from previous guidance in this report include the following: 1) a booster dose of AVA for PrEP can be given every 3 years instead of annually to persons not at high risk for exposure to Bacillus anthracis who have previously received the initial AVA 3-dose priming and 2-dose booster series and want to maintain protection; 2) during a large-scale emergency response, AVA for PEP can be administered using an intramuscular route if the subcutaneous route of administration poses significant materiel, personnel, or clinical challenges that might delay or preclude vaccination; 3) recommendations on dose-sparing AVA PEP regimens if the anthrax vaccine supply is insufficient to vaccinate all potentially exposed persons; and 4) clarification on the duration of antimicrobial therapy when used in conjunction with vaccine for PEP.These updated recommendations can be used by health care providers and guide emergency preparedness officials and planners who are developing plans to provide anthrax vaccine, including preparations for a wide-area aerosol release of B. anthracis spores. The recommendations also provide guidance on dose-sparing options, if needed, to extend the supply of vaccine to increase the number of persons receiving PEP in a mass casualty event.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra Antraz/uso terapêutico , Antraz/prevenção & controle , Adolescente , Adulto , Comitês Consultivos , Idoso , Antraz/epidemiologia , Vacinas contra Antraz/efeitos adversos , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Criança , Socorristas , Feminino , Humanos , Esquemas de Imunização , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Profilaxia Pós-Exposição , Profilaxia Pré-Exposição , Gravidez , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Adulto Jovem
14.
Ann Intern Med ; 170(8): 521-530, 2019 04 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30884525

RESUMO

Background: Population exposure to Bacillus anthracis spores could cause mass casualties requiring complex medical care. Rapid identification of patients needing anthrax-specific therapies will improve patient outcomes and resource use. Objective: To develop a checklist that rapidly distinguishes most anthrax from nonanthrax illnesses on the basis of clinical presentation and identifies patients requiring diagnostic testing after a population exposure. Design: Comparison of published anthrax case reports from 1880 through 2013 that included patients seeking anthrax-related care at 2 epicenters of the 2001 U.S. anthrax attacks. Setting: Outpatient and inpatient. Patients: 408 case patients with inhalation, ingestion, and cutaneous anthrax and primary anthrax meningitis, and 657 control patients. Measurements: Diagnostic test characteristics, including positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) and patient triage assignation. Results: Checklist-directed triage without diagnostic testing correctly classified 95% (95% CI, 93% to 97%) of 353 adult anthrax case patients and 76% (CI, 73% to 79%) of 647 control patients (positive LR, 3.96 [CI, 3.45 to 4.55]; negative LR, 0.07 [CI, 0.04 to 0.11]; false-negative rate, 5%; false-positive rate, 24%). Diagnostic testing was needed for triage in up to 5% of case patients and 15% of control patients and improved overall test characteristics (positive LR, 8.90 [CI, 7.05 to 11.24]; negative LR, 0.06 [CI, 0.04 to 0.09]; false-negative rate, 5%; false-positive rate, 11%). Checklist sensitivity and specificity were minimally affected by inclusion of pediatric patients. Sensitivity increased to 97% (CI, 94% to 100%) and 98% (CI, 96% to 100%), respectively, when only inhalation anthrax cases or higher-quality case reports were investigated. Limitations: Data on case patients were limited to nonstandardized, published observational reports, many of which lacked complete data on symptoms and signs of interest. Reporting bias favoring more severe cases and lack of intercurrent outbreaks (such as influenza) in the control populations may have improved test characteristics. Conclusion: A brief checklist covering symptoms and signs can distinguish anthrax from other conditions with minimal need for diagnostic testing after known or suspected population exposure. Primary Funding Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.


Assuntos
Antraz/diagnóstico , Lista de Checagem , Incidentes com Feridos em Massa , Triagem/métodos , Adulto , Algoritmos , Antraz/terapia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Meningites Bacterianas/diagnóstico , Meningites Bacterianas/terapia , Infecções Respiratórias/diagnóstico , Infecções Respiratórias/terapia , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Dermatopatias Bacterianas/diagnóstico , Dermatopatias Bacterianas/terapia , Estados Unidos
15.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 23(13)2017 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29155651

RESUMO

Naturally occurring anthrax disproportionately affects the health and economic welfare of poor, rural communities in anthrax-endemic countries. However, many of these countries have limited anthrax prevention and control programs. Effective prevention of anthrax outbreaks among humans is accomplished through routine livestock vaccination programs and prompt response to animal outbreaks. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention uses a 2-phase framework when providing technical assistance to partners in anthrax-endemic countries. The first phase assesses and identifies areas for improvement in existing human and animal surveillance, laboratory diagnostics, and outbreak response. The second phase provides steps to implement improvements to these areas. We describe examples of implementing this framework in anthrax-endemic countries. These activities are at varying stages of completion; however, the public health impact of these initiatives has been encouraging. The anthrax framework can be extended to other zoonotic diseases to build on these efforts, improve human and animal health, and enhance global health security.


Assuntos
Antraz/diagnóstico , Antraz/epidemiologia , Bacillus anthracis , Vigilância em Saúde Pública , Antraz/prevenção & controle , Antraz/transmissão , Fortalecimento Institucional , Técnicas de Laboratório Clínico , Surtos de Doenças , Epidemias , Implementação de Plano de Saúde , Humanos , Vigilância em Saúde Pública/métodos , Vacinação
16.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 23(1): 56-65, 2017 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27983504

RESUMO

We studied anthrax immune globulin intravenous (AIG-IV) use from a 2009-2010 outbreak of Bacillus anthracis soft tissue infection in injection drug users in Scotland, UK, and we compared findings from 15 AIG-IV recipients with findings from 28 nonrecipients. Death rates did not differ significantly between recipients and nonrecipients (33% vs. 21%). However, whereas only 8 (27%) of 30 patients at low risk for death (admission sequential organ failure assessment score of 0-5) received AIG-IV, 7 (54%) of the 13 patients at high risk for death (sequential organ failure assessment score of 6-11) received treatment. AIG-IV recipients had surgery more often and, among survivors, had longer hospital stays than did nonrecipients. AIG-IV recipients were sicker than nonrecipients. This difference and the small number of higher risk patients confound assessment of AIG-IV effectiveness in this outbreak.


Assuntos
Antraz/tratamento farmacológico , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Antitoxinas/uso terapêutico , Surtos de Doenças , Imunoglobulina G/uso terapêutico , Infecções dos Tecidos Moles/tratamento farmacológico , Abuso de Substâncias por Via Intravenosa/tratamento farmacológico , Adulto , Antraz/epidemiologia , Antraz/microbiologia , Antraz/mortalidade , Bacillus anthracis/patogenicidade , Bacillus anthracis/fisiologia , Quimioterapia Combinada , Usuários de Drogas , Feminino , Heroína/administração & dosagem , Humanos , Masculino , Escócia/epidemiologia , Infecções dos Tecidos Moles/epidemiologia , Infecções dos Tecidos Moles/microbiologia , Infecções dos Tecidos Moles/mortalidade , Abuso de Substâncias por Via Intravenosa/epidemiologia , Abuso de Substâncias por Via Intravenosa/microbiologia , Abuso de Substâncias por Via Intravenosa/mortalidade , Análise de Sobrevida , Resultado do Tratamento
18.
Clin Infect Dis ; 62(12): 1537-1545, 2016 06 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27025833

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Bacillus anthracis, the causative agent of anthrax, is a potential bioterrorism agent. Anthrax meningitis is a common manifestation of B. anthracis infection, has high mortality, and requires more aggressive treatment than anthrax without meningitis. Its rapid identification and treatment are essential for successful management of an anthrax mass casualty incident. METHODS: Three hundred six published reports from 1880 through 2013 met predefined inclusion criteria. We calculated descriptive statistics for abstracted cases and conducted multivariable regression on separate derivation and validation cohorts to identify clinical diagnostic and prognostic factors for anthrax meningitis. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two of 363 (36%) cases with systemic anthrax met anthrax meningitis criteria. Severe headache, altered mental status, meningeal signs, and other neurological signs at presentation independently predicted meningitis in the derivation cohort and were tested as a 4-item assessment tool for use during anthrax mass casualty incidents. Presence of any 1 factor on admission had a sensitivity for finding anthrax meningitis of 89% (83%) in the adult (pediatric) validation cohorts. Anthrax meningitis was unlikely in the absence of any of these signs or symptoms (likelihood ratio [LR]- = 0.12 [0.19] for adult [pediatric] cohorts), while presence of 2 or more made meningitis very likely (LR+ = 26.5 [30.0]). Survival of anthrax meningitis was predicted by treatment with a bactericidal agent (P = .005) and use of multiple antimicrobials (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: We developed an evidence-based assessment tool for screening patients for meningitis during an anthrax mass casualty incident. Its use could improve both patient outcomes and resource allocation in such an event.


Assuntos
Antraz/diagnóstico , Antraz/epidemiologia , Bacillus anthracis , Incidentes com Feridos em Massa , Meningites Bacterianas/diagnóstico , Meningites Bacterianas/epidemiologia , Adolescente , Adulto , Antraz/microbiologia , Antraz/fisiopatologia , Bioterrorismo , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Disfunção Cognitiva , Feminino , Cefaleia , Humanos , Masculino , Meningites Bacterianas/microbiologia , Meningites Bacterianas/fisiopatologia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade
19.
MMWR Recomm Rep ; 64(4): 1-22, 2015 Dec 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26632963

RESUMO

In 2014, CDC published updated guidelines for the prevention and treatment of anthrax (Hendricks KA, Wright ME, Shadomy SV, et al. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expert panel meetings on prevention and treatment of anthrax in adults. Emerg Infect Dis 2014;20[2]. Available at http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/20/2/13-0687_article.htm). These guidelines provided recommended best practices for the diagnosis and treatment of persons with naturally occurring or bioterrorism-related anthrax in conventional medical settings. An aerosolized release of Bacillus anthracis spores over densely populated areas could become a mass-casualty incident. To prepare for this possibility, the U.S. government has stockpiled equipment and therapeutics (known as medical countermeasures [MCMs]) for anthrax prevention and treatment. However, previously developed, publicly available clinical recommendations have not addressed the use of MCMs or clinical management during an anthrax mass-casualty incident, when the number of patients is likely to exceed the ability of the health care infrastructure to provide conventional standards of care and supplies of MCMs might be inadequate to meet the demand required. To address this gap, in 2013, CDC conducted a series of systematic reviews of the scientific literature on anthrax to identify evidence that could help clinicians and public health authorities set guidelines for intravenous antimicrobial and antitoxin use, diagnosis of anthrax meningitis, and management of common anthrax-specific complications in the setting of a mass-casualty incident. Evidence from these reviews was presented to professionals with expertise in anthrax, critical care, and disaster medicine during a series of workgroup meetings that were held from August 2013 through March 2014. In March 2014, a meeting was held at which 102 subject matter experts discussed the evidence and adapted the existing best practices guidance to a clinical use framework for the judicious, efficient, and rational use of stockpiled MCMs for the treatment of anthrax during a mass-casualty incident, which is described in this report. This report addresses elements of hospital-based acute care, specifically antitoxins and intravenous antimicrobial use, and the diagnosis and management of common anthrax-specific complications during a mass-casualty incident. The recommendations in this report should be implemented only after predefined triggers have been met for shifting from conventional to contingency or crisis standards of care, such as when the magnitude of cases might lead to impending shortages of intravenous antimicrobials, antitoxins, critical care resources (e.g., chest tubes and chest drainage systems), or diagnostic capability. This guidance does not address primary triage decisions, anthrax postexposure prophylaxis, hospital bed or workforce surge capacity, or the logistics of dispensing MCMs. Clinicians, hospital administrators, state and local health officials, and planners can use these recommendations to assist in the development of crisis protocols that will ensure national preparedness for an anthrax mass-casualty incident.


Assuntos
Antraz/diagnóstico , Antraz/terapia , Planejamento em Desastres/organização & administração , Alocação de Recursos para a Atenção à Saúde/organização & administração , Incidentes com Feridos em Massa , Administração Intravenosa , Anti-Infecciosos/provisão & distribuição , Anti-Infecciosos/uso terapêutico , Antitoxinas/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Estados Unidos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA