From the publishers of The New England Journal of Medicine

Save time and stay informed. Our physician-editors offer you clinical perspectives on key research and news.

  1. Home>
  2. Specialties>
  3. General Medicine>
  4. Summary and Comment

What Distinguishes Anthrax from Viral Respiratory Disease?

A proposed screening protocol might help health care professionals cope with suspected bioterrorism.

If a bioterrorist attack with anthrax was suspected, how could practitioners who would be responsible for implementing mass screening distinguish patients with inhalational anthrax from those with vastly more common viral respiratory diseases? Because large prospective studies can't be performed to answer this question, researchers studied detailed reports of 28 anthrax cases in the medical literature and compared their clinical features with those noted in epidemiologic studies of influenza and noninfluenza viral respiratory illnesses and in a study of community-acquired pneumonia among ambulatory adults.

Among the anthrax patients, 96% had fever, chills, or cough on presentation; 81% had abnormalities on lung auscultation; 43% exhibited neurologic symptoms other than headache (confusion, blurry vision, dizziness); 18% had sore throat; and 14% had rhinorrhea. Nonheadache neurologic symptoms, dyspnea, nausea or vomiting, and abnormal auscultatory findings were significantly more common in anthrax patients than in patients with viral respiratory infection; rhinorrhea and sore throat were much less common in anthrax patients. No clinical features reliably distinguished anthrax from community-acquired pneumonia.

Comment: This analysis has 3 major problems. First, case reports do not contain unbiased, systematically collected data. Second, the characteristics of these few cases might differ from those found in an outbreak. And third, the studied comparison group might not be representative of people without anthrax who would present for screening if a publicized attack occurred. Nonetheless, these are the best currently available data and, should the health care system be faced with mass screening for anthrax, a screening protocol based on the identified signs and symptoms would be better than an uninformed approach. The authors propose a screening protocol, which is analyzed by an editorialist.

— Richard Saitz, MD, MPH, FACP, FASAM

Published in Journal Watch General Medicine September 23, 2003

Citation(s):

Hupert N et al. Accuracy of screening for inhalational anthrax after a bioterrorist attack. Ann Intern Med 2003 Sep 2; 139:337-45.

Sox HC. A triage algorithm for inhalational anthrax. Ann Intern Med 2003 Sep 2; 139:379-81.

Your Remark:

Reader Remarks are intended to encourage lively discussion of clinical topics with your peers in the medical community. Please consider this when composing your remark.

Fields marked with an * are required.

Name as you'd like it to appear:

Submitting a comment indicates you have read and agreed to the remark guidelines and declare:*

PRIVACY: We will not use your email address, submitted for a comment, for any other purpose nor sell, rent, or share your e-mail address with any third parties. Please see our Privacy Policy.

 

CLEAR erases anything you've added in any part of the form. CONTINUE allows you to check your entire post (and edit it if necessary) before submitting.

To ensure that your Reader Remark is not formatted as one long paragraph, precede new paragraphs with either a blank line or an indentation.

Search

Advanced

Article Tools

Reader Remarks

Related Content

Sign-In

Forgot your password?

New to Journal Watch?

E-mail Alerts

Delivered to your inbox.
Tailored to your interests. Free.

Sign Up Now!

Journal Watch Newsletters

Available in 13 specialties with convenient delivery and 10 free online CME exams.

Subscribe Now!

Copyright © 2003. Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.