|
| About This Section |
 |
| BioMedNet Reviews |
Is the worlds largest life science reviews
database. It includes over 16,000 articles drawn from over 150 life
science and biomedical journals.
|

|
|
| Access To This Section |
As a BioMedNet member you have:
Free full-text access to this
article within BioMedNet Reviews for 14 days.
Access to abstracts of all articles
in the Reviews database.
You will have a full-text access to all other articles if your
institute subscribes.
Recommend to your librarian.
|
| |
| Did you know? |
Full-text access to BioMedNet Reviews is
available on subscription for your institute or company.
More information
|
| Email Alerts |
You can customize your email alerts from
BioMedNet Reviews to keep up to date with your own interests.
Sign up
here
|
|
|
 |

| |
|
|
The
events of the autumn of 2001 in the United States made it
clear that the spectre of the use of microorganisms to
intentionally harm humans is a reality. The current strategy
to control disease outbreaks caused by the intentional release
of bacteria is to use antimicrobial agents, both
therapeutically and prophylactically. However, multidrug-resistant
strains of bacterial bioterrorism agents occur naturally or
have been bio-engineered, indicating how vulnerable this
strategy is.
|
Introduction
In April 2000, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in
the United States released a strategic plan for responding to
a bioterrorism (BT) attack
[1]. In that report, they categorized several infectious
agents, including three bacteria, Bacillus anthracis,
Yersinia pestis, and Francisella tularensis, that
were likely to be used as BT agents for three reasons. First,
these agents are either easily transmitted (B. anthracis
and F. tularensis) or they can be spread from person to
person (Y. pestis); second, they have the potential to
cause high mortality; and third, their release might result in
public panic and disorder. They designated these organisms as
'category A'.
A second group, designated as category B, were judged to be
less dangerous but still a cause for concern. Three additional
bacteria, Brucella spp., Burkholderia pseudomallei,
and Burkholderia mallei, were listed. Both Brucella
and B. mallei also have the potential for being used in
agro-terrorism, since both are primarily animal pathogens,
whereas B. psuedomallei is a human pathogen.
In October 2001, the hypothetical concerns surrounding the use
of microbes as BT agents became reality with the recognition
of a fatal case of anthrax in a Florida man
[2]. Over the next few months, another ten individuals
developed inhalational anthrax, four of whom died. Eight
confirmed cutaneous cases of anthrax also occurred but with no
fatalities
[3,4] . It is now clear that a series of letters
containing anthrax spores, sent through the US mail, were
responsible for this outbreak. Because large numbers of
individuals were potentially exposed to these spores via
handling tainted letters or being present when such letters
were opened, thousands of individuals received antimicrobial
prophylaxis, with most taking ciprofloxacin and a small
minority receiving doxycyline or amoxicillin
[5].
Because infections with the category-A and -B organisms listed
above are so uncommon in the industrialized world, there is
limited knowledge on the frequency of and how best to detect
in vitro drug resistance of these organisms. The
understanding of the effectiveness of various antimicrobial
regimens in treating infections with these organisms or their
prophylactic use is limited. In this review, these issues will
be examined for the six bacterial agents listed in
Table 1.
|
|
Go to the Full Article > > |
|
|
As
a BioMedNet member you have free
full-text access to this article
within BioMedNet Reviews for 14 days
You
will have full-text access to all articles if your institute
subscribes.
Recommend a subscription to your librarian
There
are 15,000 more Review articles in
BioMedNet Reviews
Please
send us your
feedback on this magazine
|
|
|
|
BioMedNet Magazine
9th - 22nd October 2002 |
|
 |
|
|
| Related
Links in BioMedNet Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|