MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417458013 · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.128068

Immunogenicity, safety, and lot consistency of the anthrax vaccine adsorbed, adjuvanted for post-exposure prophylaxis of anthrax in healthy adults: A phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial

2025· article· en· W4417458013 on OpenAlexaff
Bojan Drobic, Gideon Akintunde, Julia Kim, Mila Mirceta, M. J. Beach, Vanja Komlenovic

Bibliographic record

VenueVaccine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacillus and Francisella bacterial research
Canadian institutionsEmergent BioSolutions (Canada)
FundersBiomedical Advanced Research and Development AuthorityU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesAdministration for Strategic Preparedness and Response
KeywordsAnthrax vaccinesConsistency (knowledge bases)Phase (matter)Clinical trialImmunogenicityBacillus anthracis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background This double-blinded randomized Phase 3 study evaluated the immunogenicity and safety of CYFENDUS® vaccine (AV7909; Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed, Adjuvanted) to support licensure for post-exposure prophylaxis following suspected or confirmed Bacillus anthracis exposure when administered with the recommended antibacterial drugs. Methods Healthy adult participants ( n = 3689) aged 18 to 65 were randomized to receive CYFENDUS vaccination (intramuscularly at 0, 2 weeks) or BioThrax® (Anthrax Vaccine Absorbed) [subcutaneously at 0, 2, 4 weeks]. Immunogenicity at Day 64 (seven weeks after the last CYFENDUS vaccine dose; five weeks after the last BioThrax vaccine dose) was evaluated using a 50 % neutralizing factor (NF 50 ) threshold of protective immunogenicity generated by a toxin neutralizing antibody (TNA) assay, and by evaluating non-inferiority of CYFENDUS to BioThrax vaccination. Safety was assessed by physical exams, vital signs, solicited local injection site and systemic reactogenicity, and unsolicited adverse events (AEs). Results The prospectively defined success criteria were met for the primary immunogenicity endpoints. The lower bound of the two-sided 95 % confidence interval (CI) for the proportion of CYFENDUS participants with TNA NF 50 ≥ 0.56 was above the pre-defined criterion of ≥40 % (95 % CI: 64.5 %, 68.1 %). The lower bound of the two-sided 95 % CI of the difference in the proportion of participants with TNA NF 50 ≥ 0.29 in the CYFENDUS versus the BioThrax vaccine group was greater than the pre-defined non-inferiority criterion of −15 % as well as demonstrating statistical superiority (95 % CI: 20.0, 29.2 %), a closed hypothesis test supported by regulatory agencies in well-controlled clinical trials. The most common adverse events (AE) were injection site-related; most reported solicited reactogenicities and AEs were either Grade 1 or 2 severity. Conclusions The study met the pre-defined endpoint criteria, demonstrating protective level of immune response and non-inferiority of CYFENDUS to BioThrax vaccination. The CYFENDUS vaccine was well-tolerated in healthy adults. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03877926

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVaccineSame topicBacillus and Francisella bacterial researchFrench-language works237,207