Efficacy of ANTHRASIL (Anthrax Immune Globulin Intravenous (Human)) in rabbit and nonhuman primate models of inhalational anthrax: Data supporting approval under animal rule
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To meet the requirements of the Animal Rule, the efficacy of monotherapy with ANTHRASIL® (Anthrax Immune Globulin Intravenous (Human)) for inhalational anthrax was evaluated in blinded studies using rabbit and nonhuman primate models. Animals in both studies were randomized to treatment groups exposed to ~ 200 LD50 Bacillus anthracis (Ames strain) spores by the aerosol route to induce inhalational anthrax. Rabbits (N = 50/group) were treated with either 15 U/kg ANTHRASIL or a volume-matching dose of IGIV after disease onset as determined by the detection of bacterial toxin in the blood. At the end of the study, survival rates were 2% (1 of 48) in the IGIV control group, and 26% (13 of 50) in the ANTHRASIL-treated group (p = 0.0009). Similarly, ANTHRASIL was effective in cynomolgus monkeys (N = 16/group) when administered therapeutically after the onset of toxemia, with 6% survival in the IGIV control and a dose-related increase in survival of 36%, 43%, and 70% with 7.5, 15 or 30 U/kg doses of ANTHRASIL, respectively. These studies formed the basis for approval of ANTHRASIL by FDA under the Animal Rule.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".