Differentiating inhalational anthrax from other influenza-like
illnesses and acute respiratory infections in the setting of a deliberate
release of Bacillus anthracis
Many acute respiratory illnesses are viral in aetiology,
and the infections are broadly grouped together as influenza-like illness
(ILI) because of the similarity in presenting symptoms. Community acquired
pneumonia (CAP) is often bacterial and frequently requires hospitalisation.
Depending on the disease stage at presentation, inhalational anthrax (IA)
may have features of either ILI or CAP. Recognition of inhalational anthrax,
particularly amongst seasonal acute respiratory illnesses, is likely to be
difficult if a deliberate release has not been recognised.
The classic clinical picture of IA is biphasic but non-specific, with an
initial phase that is influenza-like with fever, malaise, myalgia and cough.
The second phase begins abruptly with development of an acute dyspnoea and
progresses rapidly to septic shock. The non-specificity of the early symptoms
may make it unrealistic to diagnose in the absence of a known release, but
prompt recognition is critical for appropriate management.
Two recent papers have attempted to define those clinical features that
may assist diagnosis, and to develop a diagnostic algorithm [1,2]. Following
recognition of a release or of other cases, a risk assessment is crucial
with patients being assigned to a high risk or no risk group based on their
exposure to anthrax spores. Not all potential cases will be encountered
in such a setting, however, and certain groups, especially the elderly,
are particularly vulnerable, since infection may result from exposure to
a very low dose of spores [3]. Sporadic cases will require differentiation
from other more common causes of acute respiratory illness, including CAP.
Table 1 shows those signs and symptoms likely to be most useful for distinguishing
clinical syndromes.
Table 1. Suggestive signs and symptoms for inhalation
anthrax. (Adapted from references 1 and 2.)
| Symptoms/test results favouring possible
inhalation anthrax |
| |
Widened mediastinum on CXR or CT scan |
| |
Pleural effusions |
| |
Haemoconcentration >50% |
| |
Shortness of breath |
| |
Chest discomfort or pleuritic chest pain |
| |
Drenching sweats |
| |
Tachycardia |
| |
Nausea or vomiting |
| |
Oxygen saturation <94% by pulse oximeter |
| |
PaO2 <70mmHg on room air |
| |
Elevated transaminases |
| |
| Symptoms/test results favouring other influenza-like
illness |
| |
Coryza/rhinorrhoea, |
| |
Sore throat |
| |
Positive rapid tests for influenza or RSV |
The following scoring systems have also been used to aid the differentiation
of clinical presentations.
Table 2. Scoring system to distinguish between IA and
ILI. (Adapted from reference 2.)
| |
Score |
| Low serum albumin |
+2 |
| Tachycardia |
+2 |
| No nasal symptoms |
+2 |
| No myalgia or arthralgia |
+1 |
| Low serum sodium |
+1 |
| No headache |
+1 |
| High haematocrit or haemoglobin |
+1 |
A score of ≥ 4 was 100% sensitive and 96% specific for IA
Table 3. Scoring system to differentiate IA from CAP.
(Adapted from reference 2.)
| |
Score |
| Elevated serum ALT and AST levels |
+1 |
| Low serum sodium level |
+1 |
| Normal WBC count |
+1 |
| Nausea or vomiting |
+1 |
| Tachycardia |
+1 |
However this only poorly differentiates IA from CAP: Score ≥ 2,
sensitivity100% but 48% specificity; Score ≥ 3, sensitivity 82%, specificity
81%.
The figure shows diagnostic investigations and outcomes for patients presenting
with appropriate clinical signs/symptoms during an anthrax outbreak
Figure. Workup for patients with an ILI during an anthrax
outbreak. (Reproduced with permission from reference 1.)
| Key for algorithm: |
ABGT - arterial blood gases
CBCD – complete blood count and differential
CR - chest radiograph
CSF – cerebrospinal fluid
CT - computed tomographic |
GS - gram stain
IA – inhalational anthrax
IV – intravenous
LFTs – liver function tests
RSV respiratory syncytial virus |
Conclusions
Following the recognition of a deliberate release of Bacillus anthracis,
discrimination of IA from ILI could be readily achieved with high sensitivity
and specificity. However differentiation from CAP, particularly that due
to Streptococcus pneumoniae, is more problematic due to the fact
that symptoms of each are generally indicative of sepsis. Recognition of
the first cases of IA in a deliberate release is likely to remain problematic.
An assessment of the known exposure or possible epidemiological risk may
assist, but hospital admission and full diagnostic imaging, biochemical
and microbiological investigations are required for definitive diagnosis.