PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15233330

Initial experience with mass immunization as a bioterrorism countermeasure.

Les R Folio·Ronald L Lahti·David S Cockrum·Steven Bills·Michael R Younker
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Anthrax vaccine was administered to approximately 5000 individuals at a deployed location near Iraq in a 1-week period. This report describes the planning and administrative process to initiate such a program, with a snapshot view of the first week of immunization. Compliance with this program was important to best protect troops in this high-threat region. The authors share their experience and detail the process of handling refusals, as these are most likely to reveal themselves at the beginning of an immunization program. The program resulted in a compliance rate of 98%. With increased terrorist threats and widespread availability of biologic agents of mass destruction, experiences with such immunization programs should be described in the literature and analyzed in anticipation of similar programs in the future.

Explore related subjects

Anthrax VaccinesBiological WarfareBioterrorismHumansMass VaccinationMilitary PersonnelUnited StatesJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Les R Folio, Ronald L Lahti, David S Cockrum, Steven Bills, Michael R Younker. 2004. Initial experience with mass immunization as a bioterrorism countermeasure.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15233330/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Development of the Vaccine Analytic Unit's research agenda for investigating potential adverse events associated with anthrax vaccine adsorbed.

PURPOSE: In 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention established the Vaccine Analytic Unit (VAU) in collaboration with the Department of Defense (DoD). The focus of this report is to describe the process by which the VAU's anthrax vaccine safety research plan was developed following a comprehensive review of these topics. METHODS: Public health literature, surveillance data, and clinical sources were reviewed to create a list of adverse events hypothesized to be potentially related to anthrax vaccine adsorbed (AVA). From this list, a consensus process was used to select 11 important research topics. Adverse event background papers were written for each of these topics, addressing predetermined criteria. These were independently reviewed and ranked by a National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) workgroup. The adverse events included in the final priority list will be the subject of observational or other post marketing surveillance studies using the Defense Medical Surveillance System (DMSS) database. RESULTS: A review of various information sources identified over 100 potential adverse events. The review process recommended 11 topics as potentially warranting further study. The NVAC workgroup identified the following adverse event topics for study: arthritis, optic neuritis, and Stevens-Johnson syndrome/Toxic epidermal necrolysis. Two additional topics (systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and multiple, near-concurrent military vaccinations) were added in response to emerging public health and military concerns. CONCLUSIONS: The experience described, while specific for establishing the VAU's research agenda for the safety of the current anthrax vaccine, may be useful and adapted for research planning in other areas of public health research.

Anthrax Vaccines↗
PubMed2006

Gorse GJ, et al. "Immunogenicity and tolerance of ascending doses of a recombinant protective antigen (rPA102) anthrax vaccine: a randomized, double-blinded, controlled, multicenter trial" [Vaccine 24 (2006) 5950-5959].

In the study reported by Gorse et al. a unique, educational opportunity was lost. The vaccine and biodefense communities almost experienced the rare chance in a Phase I study to scientifically compare head-to-head an early-stage, investigational recombinant anthrax vaccine (rPA102) with the safe, effective and already FDA-licensed anthrax vaccine, AVA (BioThrax). The authors take a stab at making safety and immunogenicity comparisons between the candidate vaccine and AVA (BioThrax) but the study design and analytical approach makes this inappropriate. Inaccurate and poorly substantiated editorial comments in the paper's introduction compound these methodological problems. The reader is presented with a series of false and misleading statements about AVA (BioThrax). Out-of-date sources are relied upon and these references are offered to the reader as the best evidence available when more current papers with up-to-date information and data exist. Additionally, the conclusions in several original contributions are misrepresented in this paper by Gorse et al. Issues with protocol and bias notwithstanding, the single most compelling observation from this trial could be that the response of those subjects in this study population (n=19) who received AVA on the altered schedule and route of two doses of AVA (BioThrax) delivered intramuscularly (IM) in just 4 weeks mounted a robust immune response. Given the more than 30 year history of the safe and effective use of AVA (BioThrax) as well as the more current data on AVA (BioThrax) a strong case can be made for continued funding to investigate the feasibility of adding another route of delivery (IM) and optimizing the schedule for this already FDA-licensed vaccine.

Anthrax Vaccines↗
PubMed2006

Cloning and expression in E. coli of a functional Fab fragment obtained from single human lymphocyte against anthrax toxin.

Human lymphocytes derived from the blood of a donor immunized with anthrax vaccine were isolated and enriched for B-cells by Nycoprep density centrifugation. Individual anti-anthrax protective antigen (PA) B-cells were isolated by fluorescence activated cell sorting with fluorescence-labeled recombinant PA (rPA). The RNA from sorted single B-cells was extracted using plant total RNA as the carrier prior to purification by Nanoprep RNA isolation columns and then cDNA was prepared. Donor specific human Fab primer sets were developed based on rapid amplification of 5'-complementary DNA end results. Heavy chain and light chain of human Fab were amplified from the donor single B-cells by PCR. The amplified heavy and light chain were then cloned into the expression vector pASK-IBA2 and expressed in Escherichia coli (E. coli). The chains combined in vivo to form a functional Fab which was then purified as one protein. The human Fab antibodies produced by this technique were functional when tested in Western blots where the rPA was the target as well as in ELISA. This approach allowed us to obtain human Fab that retained the natural heavy and light chain pairing, which is supposed to have a high antigen-binding affinity.

Anthrax Vaccines↗