Evidence Hub

A systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical trials testing anti-toxin therapies for B. anthracis infection: A need for more robust study designs and results

Xu W, Ohanjanian L, Sun J, Cui X, Suffredini D, Li Y, Welsh J, Eichacker PQ

PloS one, 2017

13 citations

Abstract

Background: B. anthracis anti-toxin agents are approved and included in the Strategic National Stockpile based primarily on animal infection trials. However, in the only anthrax outbreak an approved anti-toxin agent was administered in, survival did not differ comparing recipients and non-recipients, although recipients appeared sicker.

Objective: Employ a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate preclinical studies supporting anthrax anti-toxin agents.

Data source: PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus.

Study eligibility: Compared survival with an anti-toxin agent versus control in B. anthracis challenged, antibiotic treated animals.

Study methods: Examine model and study design and the effect of anti-toxin agents on relative risk of death(95%CI) (RR).

Results: From 9 studies, 29 experiments were analyzed which included 4 species (748 animals) and 5 agents; LFI, AIG, AVP-21D9, Raxibacumab, and ETI-204. Only five experiments were blinded and no experiment included the cardiopulmonary support sick B. anthracis patients receive. Only one agent in a single un-blinded experiment reduced RR significantly [0.45(0.22,0.940]. However, in six studies testing an agent in more than one experiment in the same species, agents had consistent survival effects across experiments [I2 = 0, p≥0.55 in five and I2 = 42%, p = 0.16 in one]. Within each species, agents had effects on the side of benefit; in one study testing AVP-21D9 in mice [0.11(0.01,1.82)] or guinea pigs [0.70(0.48,1.03)]; across…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free