IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v36y2016i11p2031-2038.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dose‐Response Modeling for Inhalational Anthrax in Rabbits Following Single or Multiple Exposures

Author

Listed:
  • Bradford W. Gutting
  • Andrey Rukhin
  • David Marchette
  • Ryan S. Mackie
  • Brandolyn Thran

Abstract

There is a need to advance our ability to characterize the risk of inhalational anthrax following a low‐dose exposure. The exposure scenario most often considered is a single exposure that occurs during an attack. However, long‐term daily low‐dose exposures also represent a realistic exposure scenario, such as what may be encountered by people occupying areas for longer periods. Given this, the objective of the current work was to model two rabbit inhalational anthrax dose‐response data sets. One data set was from single exposures to aerosolized Bacillus anthracis Ames spores. The second data set exposed rabbits repeatedly to aerosols of B. anthracis Ames spores. For the multiple exposure data the cumulative dose (i.e., the sum of the individual daily doses) was used for the model. Lethality was the response for both. Modeling was performed using Benchmark Dose Software evaluating six models: logprobit, loglogistic, Weibull, exponential, gamma, and dichotomous‐Hill. All models produced acceptable fits to either data set. The exponential model was identified as the best fitting model for both data sets. Statistical tests suggested there was no significant difference between the single exposure exponential model results and the multiple exposure exponential model results, which suggests the risk of disease is similar between the two data sets. The dose expected to cause 10% lethality was 15,600 inhaled spores and 18,200 inhaled spores for the single exposure and multiple exposure exponential dose‐response model, respectively, and the 95% lower confidence intervals were 9,800 inhaled spores and 9,200 inhaled spores, respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:36:y:2016:i:11:p:2031-2038
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12564
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12564
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12564?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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. John L. Cicmanec, 2002. "Letter to the Editor from Cicmanec," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 1035-1036, December.
    7. Michael Greenberg & Charles Haas & Anthony Cox & Karen Lowrie & Katherine McComas & Warner North, 2012. "Ten Most Important Accomplishments in Risk Analysis, 1980–2010," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 771-781, May.
    8. Signe M. Jensen & Felix M. Kluxen & Christian Ritz, 2019. "A Review of Recent Advances in Benchmark Dose Methodology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(10), pages 2295-2315, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Signe M. Jensen & Christian Ritz, 2015. "Simultaneous Inference for Model Averaging of Derived Parameters," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 68-76, January.
    11. 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.

    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:wly:riskan:v:36:y:2016:i:11:p:2031-2038. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.