Utility of Zanamivir for Chemoprophylaxis of Concomitant Influenza A and B in a Complex Continuing Care Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe compliance with and the safety and prophylactic efficacy of zanamivir among patients at risk of developing influenza-related complications after exposure to both influenza A and B viruses. DESIGN: Nonrandomized trial using both historical and contemporaneous controls from ward populations within the same facility. SETTING: A 547-bed urban hospital providing complex continuing care and rehabiltation. PATIENTS: Fifty patients on a single ward concomitantly exposed to both influenza A and B during an influenza outbreak. INTERVENTIONS: All patients were screened for symptoms of influenza and nasopharyngeal swabs were sent for viral culture prior to treatment (two oral inhalations [2 x 5 mg] twice daily for 5 days) or prophylaxis (two oral inhalations [2 x 5 mg] once daily for 14 days) with zanamivir. Patient symptoms, compliance, and drug tolerance were monitored daily. Demographic data, comorbidities, vaccination status, and functional status (Katz score) were collected for all patients. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 70.6 years (standard deviation, +/- 16.4 years). Ninety-four percent had two or more comorbidities, 71% were dependent in two or more activities of daily living, 63% had been vaccinated for influenza, and 82% had received amantadine. Zanamivir was well tolerated, with 93% of the patients completing their course. The efficacy for preventing symptomatic infection was 82% and 91% (95% confidence interval, 62% to 98%) based on historical and contemporaneous controls, respectively. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that zanamivir can be used safely and effectively as a prophylactic agent in the management of influenza outbreaks in a complex continuing care population with multiple comorbidities.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".