Clinical signs and symptoms predicting influenza infection.

BACKGROUND: New antiviral drugs are available for the treatment of influenza type A and type B infections. In clinical practice, antiviral use has rarely been guided by antecedent laboratory diagnosis. Defined clinical predictors of an influenza infection can help guide timely therapy and avoid unnecessary antibiotic use. OBJECTIVE: To examine which clinical signs and symptoms are most predictive of influenza infection in patients with influenza-like illness using a large data set derived from clinical trials of zanamivir. METHODS: This analysis is a retrospective, pooled analysis of baseline signs and symptoms from phase 2 and 3 clinical trial participants. It was conducted in mainly unvaccinated (mean age, 35 years) adults and adolescents who had influenza-like illness, defined as having fever or feverishness plus at least 2 of the following influenza-like symptoms: headache, myalgia, cough, or sore throat who underwent laboratory testing for influenza. Clinical signs and symptoms were evaluated in statistical models to identify those best predicting laboratory confirmation of influenza. RESULTS: Of 3744 subjects enrolled with baseline influenza-like symptoms, and included in this analysis, 2470 (66%) were confirmed to have influenza. Individuals with influenza were more likely to have cough (93% vs 80%), fever (68% vs 40%), cough and fever together (64% vs 33%), and/or nasal congestion (91% vs 81%) than those without influenza. The best multivariate predictors of influenza infections were cough and fever with a positive predictive value of 79% (P<. 001). The positive predictive value rose with the increase in the temperature at the time of recruitment. CONCLUSION: When influenza is circulating within the community, patients with an influenza-like illness who have both cough and fever within 48 hours of symptom onset are likely to have influenza and the administration of influenza antiviral therapy may be appropriate to consider. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:3243-3247.

Accuracy of family history of cancer obtained through interviews with relatives of patients with childhood sarcoma.

The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of reporting of invasive cancer by relatives for family studies. First, we attempted to evaluate whether a lower than expected cancer rate found in second-degree relatives of children with soft-tissue sarcoma was a result of underreporting. Second, we evaluated the accuracy of reported cancer in two data sets by comparing reported cancer information with documentation by medical records and death certificates. We obtained medical histories from a primary informant, usually the proband's parent, on 346 first- and 784 second-degree relatives of 68 childhood and adolescent soft-tissue sarcoma patients. To investigate underreporting by the primary informant we conducted an individual interview with each adult relative or proxy. Primary informants reported 22 cancers in first-degree relatives, all confirmed as invasive cancer, and 71 cancers in second-degree relatives with 50 of 67 for which documentation confirmed as invasive. Of 715 individual informants contacted, 15 additional cancers were reported, including 5 confirmed as invasive. The number of first-degree relatives with confirmed invasive cancers was within the expected range; however, the number of cancers in second-degree relatives was below the expected range (observed/expected = 0.51 (54/105.5) 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.39-0.67). Thus, the lower than expected number of cancers in second-degree relatives was not attributable to underreporting by a single informant or inability to obtain documentation. The overreporting of 25 cancers (24.5%) in second-degree relatives, indicates the need to document all reported cancers.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Does functional ability in the postoperative period differ between remifentanil- and fentanyl-based anesthesia?

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare patients' functional ability in the 24-hour postoperative period following a remifentanil compared to a hypnotic-fentanyl-treated anesthesia regimen using a 24-Hour Functional Ability Questionnaire. DESIGN: Prospective, 1:1 single-blind, randomized, controlled effectiveness study. SETTING: Multicenter study including 156 hospitals and ambulatory surgery facilities. PATIENTS: 2438 patients (1496 outpatients and 942 inpatients) 18 years of age or older, scheduled for elective surgeries under general endotracheal anesthesia, with an expected duration of unconsciousness of > or =30 minutes. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive either intravenous remifentanil (0.5 microg/kg/min for induction and intubation; with the infusion rate decreased to 0.25 microg/kg/min after intubation) or fentanyl (administered according to anesthesiologists' usual practice) as the opioid during surgery. Concomitant hypnotic drugs were propofol and/or isoflurane (with or without nitrous oxide) titrated according to protocol. Transition analgesia with either morphine or fentanyl was given in the remifentanil patients and at the discretion of the anesthesiologists in the fentanyl patients. MEASUREMENTS: A validated set of measurements of functional ability, rather than more traditional clinical psychological methods, to compare the recovery of patients from remifentanil- and fentanyl-treated anesthetic regimens up to 24 hours after surgery. MAIN RESULTS: Remifentanil was statistically superior to fentanyl for the four functional assessments evaluated: walking without dizziness, thinking clearly, concentration, and communicating effectively. These differences reflect events occurring within the first 24 hours after anesthesia and surgery. CONCLUSIONS: A remifentanil-treated anesthetic demonstrated earlier return to some functions than a fentanyl-treated technique. Although functional assessment is a field that is still in its infancy, a questionnaire to assess functional ability during the 24 hours after anesthesia may provide more practical information about anesthetic recovery than previously used, traditional psychomotor evaluations.

Efficacy and safety of vardenafil in men with erectile dysfunction caused by spinal cord injury.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of vardenafil in men with erectile dysfunction (ED) due to traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI). METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group 12-week study, 418 men aged 18 years and older with ED for more than 6 months consequent to SCI were randomized to vardenafil (n = 207) or placebo (n = 211) (10 mg for 4 weeks, then maintained or titrated to 5 or 20 mg at weeks 4 and 8). Efficacy assessments included the erectile function (EF) domain score of the International Index of Erectile Function questionnaire and diary questions regarding penetration, maintenance of erection to completion of intercourse, and ejaculation. RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics were similar in the vardenafil (mean age 40 years) and placebo (mean age 39 years) groups. Mean baseline EF domain scores were 11.6 in the vardenafil group and 12.1 (moderate ED) in the placebo group. EF domain score in the vardenafil group improved to 22.0 (mild ED) at last observation carried forward vs 13.5 in the placebo group (p < 0.001). Over 12 weeks of treatment, mean per-patient penetration (76% vs 41%), maintenance (59% vs 22%), and ejaculation (19% vs 10%) success rates were significantly greater vs placebo (all p < 0.001). The most frequently reported drug-related adverse events were headache (vardenafil 15%, placebo 4%), flushing (vardenafil 6%, placebo 0%), nasal congestion (vardenafil 5%, placebo 0%), and dyspepsia (vardenafil 4%, placebo 0%). CONCLUSION: Vardenafil significantly improved erectile and ejaculatory function and was generally well tolerated in men with erectile dysfunction due to spinal cord injury.

Is there a learning curve associated with the use of remifentanil?

UNLABELLED: This study prospectively determined whether there was a learning curve with the use of remifentanil, as indicated by decreased hemodynamic variability, improved recovery profile, and decreased incidence of opioid-related adverse events with increasing experience. Patients undergoing diverse surgical procedures (outpatient [n = 1340] and inpatient [n = 560]) were enrolled by investigators (n = 190) who had no previous experience with remifentanil use. Each investigator enrolled 10 patients. A standardized protocol for administration of remifentanil was used. Data were analyzed to determine differences between the first three patients and the last three patients enrolled for each anesthesiologist in the study. There were no differences in hemodynamic variables between the first triad and the last triad in either outpatients or inpatients. Requirements for hypnotic drugs and the doses of remifentanil used were also similar between groups. Analgesic medications administered at the end of surgery and in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) were similar between groups, except that the last triad in the outpatient group received smaller doses of fentanyl compared with the first triad. Times to response to verbal command, tracheal extubation, and operating room discharge did not differ between groups. However, patients in the last triad undergoing outpatient surgery had shorter times to eligibility for PACU discharge, but times to eligibility for discharge home did not differ. The overall incidence of all adverse events (i.e., hypotension, hypertension, muscle rigidity, respiratory depression, apnea, nausea, and vomiting) was less in the last triad as compared with the first triad. When analyzed separately, only the incidence of vomiting (in the outpatient group) was decreased in the last triad as compared with the first triad. This study suggests that there is a learning curve that aids reduction of minor adverse effects associated with the use of analgesic medications administered at the end of surgery in outpatients, which might have reduced the incidence of postoperative vomiting and the duration of PACU stay. IMPLICATIONS: This study demonstrated that anesthesiologists rapidly acquire the ability to use remifentanil with limited experience. However, there is a learning curve that aids reduction of minor adverse effects associated with the use of analgesic medications administered at the end of surgery in outpatients, which might have reduced the incidence of postoperative vomiting and the duration of postanesthesia care unit stay.

Assessing a tool to measure patient functional ability after outpatient surgery.

UNLABELLED: The "24-Hour Functional Ability Questionnaire" (24hFAQ) was developed to measure final recovery and satisfaction 24 h after surgery. We used structured interviews preoperatively to measure baseline patient concerns, and up to 24 h after discharge, to assess patient function and satisfaction. The primary objective was to assess the validity of the newly developed 24hFAQ in the postoperative outpatient setting. The criteria assessed were 1) CONTENT: comparison with expert opinion and patients' views and response frequency distributions for asymptotes and irrelevance, 2) Construct: contribution of cognitive, physical, and satisfaction domains to postoperative functional ability, 3) Discrimination: comparing mean clinical end points with patient satisfaction, and 4) Criterion (predictive) validity: testing that related constructs are best correlated. CONTENT validity was supported by the appropriate frequency distribution of subject responses, by the lack of floor or ceiling effects, and by <2% of responses indicating irrelevance. Construct validity was supported by moderate-to-strong positive interitem correlations within the cognitive and physical domains as predicted a priori. Discriminant validity support was mixed: key symptoms were associated with adverse patient satisfaction, but operating room and postanesthesia care unit residence times were unrelated. Criterion validity was supported by the finding that preoperative concern with key symptoms was independent of postoperative outcomes. The validity assessment presented was the first assessment of the measurement capability of the 24hFAQ in an outpatient postoperative population. These results provide overall support for the validity of the 24hFAQ for use in outpatient populations. IMPLICATIONS: This study assessed the validity of a novel functional ability questionnaire that measured functional status after recovery from anesthesia and satisfaction 24 h after outpatient surgery. The content, construct, discriminant, and criterion (predictive) validities demonstrated the utility of this assessment instrument in the outpatient setting.

Treatment of adult varicella with sorivudine: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

The antiviral and clinical efficacy of sorivudine in adults with varicella was evaluated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial. A total of 186 patients were hospitalized for isolation and treatment within 96 h of rash onset. The diagnosis of varicella was confirmed in 184 patients with paired sera. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 10 or 40 mg of sorivudine or an identical placebo once a day for 5 days. Treatment with 40 mg of sorivudine (compared with placebo) shortened the mean time to 100% crusting from 6.6 to 5.8 days (P = .004) and reduced the mean days that new lesion formed from 3.9 to 3.1 (P = .014). Mean days of cutaneous viral shedding were reduced from 3.3 in the placebo group to 2.6 in the 40-mg sorivudine group (P = .002). The effectiveness of therapy was not affected by the duration of rash before initiation of therapy. Sorivudine is a promising new agent for the treatment of varicella-zoster virus infections.