Zanamivir Use During Transmission of Amantadine-Resistant Influenza A in a Nursing Home
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the use of zanamivir during an influenza A outbreak. POPULATION: Residents of a 176-bed long-term-care facility for the elderly in Newmarket, Ontario, Canada, 90% of whom received influenza vaccine in the fall of 1998. OUTBREAK: When respiratory illness due to influenza A was confirmed, infection control measures and amantadine prophylaxis were initiated. Despite these measures, transmission of influenza A continued. INTERVENTION: Zanamivir inhalations, 10 mg daily for prophylaxis and 10 mg twice daily for treatment of influenza. RESULTS: There were 13 definite and 66 probable outbreak-associated cases of influenza A. Twelve (15%) cases developed pneumonia, 7 (9%) were hospitalized, and 2 (2.6%) died. All 12 culture-positive cases yielded influenza A/Sydney/H3N2/05/97-like virus, a 1998/99 vaccine component. The three isolates obtained prior to the initiation of amantadine were amantadine-susceptible; all nine obtained after prophylaxis was instituted were amantadine-resistant. One hundred twenty-nine (92%) of 140 residents who were offered zanamivir accepted it and were able to attempt inhalations. Of these 129, 78% (100) had no difficulty in complying with inhalations. Difficulty with inhalations was associated with decreased functional and mental status. Fifteen (58%) of 26 residents fully dependent in activities of daily living had difficulty compared to 14 (14%) of 100 others (P<.001). Twenty-two (45%) of 49 residents not oriented to person, place, or time had difficulty compared to 7 (10%) of 77 others (P<.001). In the 2 weeks after zanamivir prophylaxis, only 2 new cases of respiratory illness occurred, neither confirmed as influenza. No side effects were identified in 128 zanamivir-treated residents. CONCLUSION: A minority of nursing home residents have difficulty following instructions for zanamivir inhalations. Zanamivir was well tolerated, and its use was temporally associated with termination of an outbreak that amantadine had failed to control.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".