IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/ppat00/1003555.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantitative Models of the Dose-Response and Time Course of Inhalational Anthrax in Humans

Author

Listed:
  • Damon J A Toth
  • Adi V Gundlapalli
  • Wiley A Schell
  • Kenneth Bulmahn
  • Thomas E Walton
  • Christopher W Woods
  • Catherine Coghill
  • Frank Gallegos
  • Matthew H Samore
  • Frederick R Adler

Abstract

Anthrax poses a community health risk due to accidental or intentional aerosol release. Reliable quantitative dose-response analyses are required to estimate the magnitude and timeline of potential consequences and the effect of public health intervention strategies under specific scenarios. Analyses of available data from exposures and infections of humans and non-human primates are often contradictory. We review existing quantitative inhalational anthrax dose-response models in light of criteria we propose for a model to be useful and defensible. To satisfy these criteria, we extend an existing mechanistic competing-risks model to create a novel Exposure–Infection–Symptomatic illness–Death (EISD) model and use experimental non-human primate data and human epidemiological data to optimize parameter values. The best fit to these data leads to estimates of a dose leading to infection in 50% of susceptible humans (ID50) of 11,000 spores (95% confidence interval 7,200–17,000), ID10 of 1,700 (1,100–2,600), and ID1 of 160 (100–250). These estimates suggest that use of a threshold to human infection of 600 spores (as suggested in the literature) underestimates the infectivity of low doses, while an existing estimate of a 1% infection rate for a single spore overestimates low dose infectivity. We estimate the median time from exposure to onset of symptoms (incubation period) among untreated cases to be 9.9 days (7.7–13.1) for exposure to ID50, 11.8 days (9.5–15.0) for ID10, and 12.1 days (9.9–15.3) for ID1. Our model is the first to provide incubation period estimates that are independently consistent with data from the largest known human outbreak. This model refines previous estimates of the distribution of early onset cases after a release and provides support for the recommended 60-day course of prophylactic antibiotic treatment for individuals exposed to low doses.Author Summary: Anthrax poses a potential community health risk due to accidental or intentional aerosol release. We address the need for a transparent and defensible quantitative dose-response model for inhalational anthrax that is useful for risk assessors in estimating the magnitude and timeline of potential public health consequences should a release occur. Our synthesis of relevant data and previous modeling efforts identifies areas of improvement among many commonly cited dose-response models and estimates. To address those deficiencies, we provide a new model that is based on clear, transparent assumptions and published data from human and non-human primate exposures. Our resulting estimates provide important insight into the infectivity to humans of low inhaled doses of anthrax spores and the timeline of infections after an exposure event. These insights are critical to assessment of the impacts of delays in responding to a large scale aerosol release, as well as the recommended course of antibiotic administration to those potentially exposed.

Suggested Citation

  • Damon J A Toth & Adi V Gundlapalli & Wiley A Schell & Kenneth Bulmahn & Thomas E Walton & Christopher W Woods & Catherine Coghill & Frank Gallegos & Matthew H Samore & Frederick R Adler, 2013. "Quantitative Models of the Dose-Response and Time Course of Inhalational Anthrax in Humans," PLOS Pathogens, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-18, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:ppat00:1003555
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1003555
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1003555
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1003555&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.ppat.1003555?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Timothy A. Bartrand & Mark H. Weir & Charles N. Haas, 2008. "Dose‐Response Models for Inhalation of Bacillus anthracis Spores: Interspecies Comparisons," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 1115-1124, August.
    2. S. S. Isukapalli & P. J. Lioy & P. G. Georgopoulos, 2008. "Mechanistic Modeling of Emergency Events: Assessing the Impact of Hypothetical Releases of Anthrax," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 723-740, June.
    3. Charles N. Haas, 2002. "On the Risk of Mortality to Primates Exposed to Anthrax Spores," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 189-193, April.
    4. David L. Craft & Lawrence M. Wein & Alexander H. Wilkins, 2005. "Analyzing Bioterror Response Logistics: The Case of Anthrax," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(5), pages 679-694, May.
    5. Dean A. Wilkening, 2008. "Modeling the Incubation Period of Inhalational Anthrax," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(4), pages 593-605, July.
    6. Margaret L. Brandeau & Jessica H. McCoy & Nathaniel Hupert & Jon-Erik Holty & Dena M. Bravata, 2009. "Recommendations for Modeling Disaster Responses in Public Health and Medicine: A Position Paper of the Society for Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(4), pages 438-460, July.
    7. Josep M Pujol & Joseph E Eisenberg & Charles N Haas & James S Koopman, 2009. "The Effect of Ongoing Exposure Dynamics in Dose Response Relationships," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(6), pages 1-12, June.
    8. P. F. M. Teunis & A. H. Havelaar, 2000. "The Beta Poisson Dose‐Response Model Is Not a Single‐Hit Model," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 513-520, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bradford W. Gutting & Andrey Rukhin & Ryan S. Mackie & David Marchette & Brandolyn Thran, 2015. "Evaluation of Inhaled Versus Deposited Dose Using the Exponential Dose‐Response Model for Inhalational Anthrax in Nonhuman Primate, Rabbit, and Guinea Pig," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 811-827, May.
    2. Lynelle R. Johnson & Steven E. Epstein & Jonathan D. Dear & Barbara A. Byrne, 2022. "Assessment of Zoonotic Risk following Diagnosis of Canine Tularemia in a Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-6, February.
    3. Margaret E. Coleman & Harry M. Marks & Timothy A. Bartrand & Darrell W. Donahue & Stephanie A. Hines & Jason E. Comer & Sarah C. Taft, 2017. "Modeling Rabbit Responses to Single and Multiple Aerosol Exposures of Bacillus anthracis Spores," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 943-957, May.
    4. Adrian Pratt & Emma Bennett & Joseph Gillard & Steve Leach & Ian Hall, 2021. "Dose–Response Modeling: Extrapolating From Experimental Data to Real‐World Populations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 67-78, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael A. Hamilton & Tao Hong & Elizabeth Casman & Patrick L. Gurian, 2015. "Risk‐Based Decision Making for Reoccupation of Contaminated Areas Following a Wide‐Area Anthrax Release," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1348-1363, July.
    2. Bradford W. Gutting & Andrey Rukhin & Ryan S. Mackie & David Marchette & Brandolyn Thran, 2015. "Evaluation of Inhaled Versus Deposited Dose Using the Exponential Dose‐Response Model for Inhalational Anthrax in Nonhuman Primate, Rabbit, and Guinea Pig," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 811-827, May.
    3. Sarah C. Taft & Stephanie A. Hines, 2012. "Benchmark Dose Analysis for Bacillus anthracis Inhalation Exposures in the Nonhuman Primate," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1750-1768, October.
    4. David Simchi-Levi & Nikolaos Trichakis & Peter Yun Zhang, 2019. "Designing Response Supply Chain Against Bioattacks," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 1246-1268, September.
    5. Tao Hong & Patrick L. Gurian & Nicholas F. Dudley Ward, 2010. "Setting Risk‐Informed Environmental Standards for Bacillus Anthracis Spores," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(10), pages 1602-1622, October.
    6. Margaret L. Brandeau, 2019. "OR Forum—Public Health Preparedness: Answering (Largely Unanswerable) Questions with Operations Research—The 2016–2017 Philip McCord Morse Lecture," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 700-710, May.
    7. Vegard Nilsen & John Wyller, 2016. "QMRA for Drinking Water: 1. Revisiting the Mathematical Structure of Single‐Hit Dose‐Response Models," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 145-162, January.
    8. Margaret E. Coleman & Harry M. Marks & Timothy A. Bartrand & Darrell W. Donahue & Stephanie A. Hines & Jason E. Comer & Sarah C. Taft, 2017. "Modeling Rabbit Responses to Single and Multiple Aerosol Exposures of Bacillus anthracis Spores," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 943-957, May.
    9. Bradford W. Gutting & Andrey Rukhin & David Marchette & Ryan S. Mackie & Brandolyn Thran, 2016. "Dose‐Response Modeling for Inhalational Anthrax in Rabbits Following Single or Multiple Exposures," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(11), pages 2031-2038, November.
    10. P. Daniel Wright & Matthew J. Liberatore & Robert L. Nydick, 2006. "A Survey of Operations Research Models and Applications in Homeland Security," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 514-529, December.
    11. Alain, Guinet & Angel, Ruiz, 2016. "Modeling the logistics response to a bioterrorist anthrax attackAuthor-Name: Wanying, Chen," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 254(2), pages 458-471.
    12. Ubaid Illahi & Mohammad Shafi Mir, 2021. "Maintaining efficient logistics and supply chain management operations during and after coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic: learning from the past experiences," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(8), pages 11157-11178, August.
    13. Biswas, Debajyoti & Alfandari, Laurent, 2022. "Designing an optimal sequence of non‐pharmaceutical interventions for controlling COVID-19," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(3), pages 1372-1391.
    14. John L. Cicmanec, 2002. "Letter to the Editor from Cicmanec," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 1035-1036, December.
    15. Wopke van der Werf & Lia Hemerik & Just M Vlak & Mark P Zwart, 2011. "Heterogeneous Host Susceptibility Enhances Prevalence of Mixed-Genotype Micro-Parasite Infections," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(6), pages 1-15, June.
    16. Arie H. Havelaar & Marie‐Josee J. Mangen & Aline A. De Koeijer & Marc‐Jeroen Bogaardt & Eric G. Evers & Wilma F. Jacobs‐Reitsma & Wilfrid Van Pelt & Jaap A. Wagenaar & G. Ardine De Wit & Henk Van Der , 2007. "Effectiveness and Efficiency of Controlling Campylobacter on Broiler Chicken Meat," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 831-844, August.
    17. Eric G. Evers & Hetty Blaak & Raditijo A. Hamidjaja & Rob de Jonge & Franciska M. Schets, 2016. "A QMRA for the Transmission of ESBL‐Producing Escherichia coli and Campylobacter from Poultry Farms to Humans Through Flies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 215-227, February.
    18. Amie Adkin & Neil Donaldson & Louise Kelly, 2013. "A Quantitative Assessment of the Prion Risk Associated with Wastewater from Carcass‐Handling Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(7), pages 1212-1227, July.
    19. Zhang, Xiaoge & Mahadevan, Sankaran, 2021. "Bayesian network modeling of accident investigation reports for aviation safety assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    20. Peter F. M. Teunis & Cynthia L. Chappell & Pablo C. Okhuysen, 2002. "Cryptosporidium Dose Response Studies: Variation Between Isolates," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 175-185, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:ppat00:1003555. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plospathogens (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.