New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Statistical Study Estimates How Many Anthrax Cases Were Prevented

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

In case there were any doubts, a new study indicates that the widespread administration of antibiotics in response to the anthrax attack this past October was a good idea after all. Thus far, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed 11 cases of inhalation anthrax, five of which resulted in death. But a statistical analysis of the U.S. outbreak, published today in the journal Science, indicates that twice as many people could have contracted the potentially fatal inhalation form of anthrax had they not taken antibiotics.

By January of this year, public health officials had recommended that approximately 10,000 potentially exposed people undergo a 60-day regimen of antimicrobial prophylaxis. Roughly half of these individuals worked at or had visited one of three exposure sites: a postal facility in New Jersey, another in Washington, D.C., and the Boca Raton offices of American Media, Inc. Focusing on these patients, Ron Brookmeyer and Natalie Blades of Johns Hopkins University developed a statistical model to estimate the probable number of anthrax cases prevented by prophylaxis, based on information about dates of exposure, symptom onset and the anthrax incubation period. Their analysis clearly shows that the antibiotics saved lives, but Brookmeyer notes that an absence of antibiotics would probably have resulted in only nine additional cases.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In addition to confirming the wisdom of these recent decisions, the study could also influence future public health policy. Brookmeyer says that their finding "demonstrates that earlier intervention and treatment can save lives and must be a critical element of any biodefense strategy."

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe