OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test the effects of normal saline treatment either alone or in combination with protective antigen-directed monoclonal antibody in a lethal toxin-infused rat model of anthrax sepsis. DESIGN: Prospective controlled animal study. SETTING: Animal research laboratory. SUBJECTS: Sprague-Dawley rats (n = 539). INTERVENTIONS: We initially tested the efficacy of three normal saline doses (5, 10, or 20 mL/kg/hr intravenously for 24 hrs) or none (controls) started when rats were treated with either lethal toxin (24-hr infusion) or, for comparison, lipopolysaccharide (24-hr infusion) or Escherichia coli (intravenous bolus). We then investigated delaying normal saline for 6 hrs or combining it with protective antigen-directed monoclonal antibody following lethal toxin challenge. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Dose did not alter the effects of normal saline with any challenge (p not significant for all) or when combined with protective antigen-directed monoclonal antibody, so this variable was averaged in analysis. In initial studies, normal saline decreased mortality (mean hazards ratio of survival +/- SE) significantly with E. coli challenge (-0.66 +/- 0.25, p = .009 averaged over normal saline dose) but not lipopolysaccharide (-0.17 +/- 0.20). In contrast, normal saline increased mortality significantly with lethal toxin (0.69 +/- 0.20, p = .001) in a pattern different from E. coli and lipopolysaccharide (p <or= .002 for each). In subsequent studies, normal saline alone once again increased mortality (0.8 +/- 0.3, p = .006), protective antigen-directed monoclonal antibody alone reduced it (-1.7 +/- 0.8, p = .03), and the combination had intermediate effects that were not significant (0.04 +/- 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: These findings raise the possibility that normal saline treatment may actually worsen outcome with anthrax lethal toxin. Furthermore, lethal toxin-directed therapies may not be as beneficial when used in combination with this type of fluid support.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test the effects of normal saline treatment either alone or in combination with protective antigen-directed monoclonal antibody in a lethal toxin-infused rat model of anthraxsepsis. DESIGN: Prospective controlled animal study. SETTING: Animal research laboratory. SUBJECTS:Sprague-Dawley rats (n = 539). INTERVENTIONS: We initially tested the efficacy of three normal saline doses (5, 10, or 20 mL/kg/hr intravenously for 24 hrs) or none (controls) started when rats were treated with either lethal toxin (24-hr infusion) or, for comparison, lipopolysaccharide (24-hr infusion) or Escherichia coli (intravenous bolus). We then investigated delaying normal saline for 6 hrs or combining it with protective antigen-directed monoclonal antibody following lethal toxin challenge. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Dose did not alter the effects of normal saline with any challenge (p not significant for all) or when combined with protective antigen-directed monoclonal antibody, so this variable was averaged in analysis. In initial studies, normal saline decreased mortality (mean hazards ratio of survival +/- SE) significantly with E. coli challenge (-0.66 +/- 0.25, p = .009 averaged over normal saline dose) but not lipopolysaccharide (-0.17 +/- 0.20). In contrast, normal saline increased mortality significantly with lethal toxin (0.69 +/- 0.20, p = .001) in a pattern different from E. coli and lipopolysaccharide (p <or= .002 for each). In subsequent studies, normal saline alone once again increased mortality (0.8 +/- 0.3, p = .006), protective antigen-directed monoclonal antibody alone reduced it (-1.7 +/- 0.8, p = .03), and the combination had intermediate effects that were not significant (0.04 +/- 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: These findings raise the possibility that normal saline treatment may actually worsen outcome with anthrax lethal toxin. Furthermore, lethal toxin-directed therapies may not be as beneficial when used in combination with this type of fluid support.
Authors: Stefan M Muehlbauer; Heriberto Lima; David L Goldman; Lee S Jacobson; Johanna Rivera; Michael F Goldberg; Michael A Palladino; Arturo Casadevall; Jürgen Brojatsch Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Ping Qiu; Yan Li; Yi Ding; Jia Weng; Steven M Banks; Steven Kern; Yvonne Fitz; Anthony F Suffredini; Peter Q Eichacker; Xizhong Cui Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-08-30 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Amisha V Barochia; Xizhong Cui; Junfeng Sun; Yan Li; Steven B Solomon; Thi-Sau Migone; G Mani Subramanian; Sally D Bolmer; Peter Q Eichacker Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2012-01-05 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Yan Li; Xizhong Cui; Junwu Su; Michael Haley; Heather Macarthur; Kevin Sherer; Mahtab Moayeri; Stephen H Leppla; Yvonne Fitz; Peter Q Eichacker Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Arthur E Frankel; Shu-Ru Kuo; David Dostal; Linley Watson; Nicholas S Duesbery; Che-Ping Cheng; Heng Jie Cheng; Stephen H Leppla Journal: Front Biosci (Landmark Ed) Date: 2009-01-01