Antivirals for influenza: a summary of a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Despite the use of antivirals to treat patients with severe influenza, questions remain with respect to effects and safety. Although a recent systematic review has provided some indication of benefit, the analysis is limited by the quality of the available evidence from randomized controlled trials. To supplement the existing information, the authors conducted a systematic review of observational studies of antiviral treatment for influenza. This report summarises the findings of that review. Similar to the randomised trials, the confidence in the estimates of the effects for decision-making is low to very low primarily due to the risk of selection and publication bias in the observational studies. From these observational studies, the summary estimates suggest that oseltamivir may reduce mortality, hospitalisation and duration of symptoms compared with no treatment. Inhaled zanamivir may also reduce symptom duration and hospitalisations, but patients may experience more complications compared with no treatment. Earlier treatment with antivirals is generally associated with better outcomes than later treatment. Further high-quality evidence is needed to inform treatment guidelines because of the overall low to very low quality of evidence.

Antivirals for treatment of influenza: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of randomized, controlled trials in patients with influenza suggest a lack of evidence about the effects of antiviral therapy on several patient-important outcomes of influenza. PURPOSE: To systematically review observational studies for benefits and harms of oseltamivir, zanamivir, amantadine, or rimantadine in the treatment of influenza. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, SIGLE, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Panteleimon, and LILACS up to November 2010; contact with pharmaceutical companies; and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies in any language that compared single antiviral therapy with no therapy or other antiviral therapy, or that had no comparator, for influenza or influenza-like illness. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent investigators extracted data. Confidence in the estimates of the obtained effects (quality of evidence) was assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. DATA SYNTHESIS: 74 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses of the few studies providing effects with adjustment for confounders suggest that, in high-risk populations, oral oseltamivir may reduce mortality (odds ratio, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.13 to 0.43]; low-quality evidence), hospitalization (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.66 to 0.89]; low-quality evidence), and duration of symptoms (33 hours [CI, 21 to 45 hours]; very low-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. Earlier treatment with oseltamivir was generally associated with better outcomes. Inhaled zanamivir may lead to shorter symptom duration (23 hours [CI, 17 to 28 hours]; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer hospitalizations (odds ratio, 0.66 [CI, 0.37 to 1.18]) but more complications than no treatment. Direct comparison of oral oseltamivir and inhaled zanamivir suggests no important differences in key outcomes. Data from 1 study suggest that oral amantadine may reduce mortality and pneumonia associated with influenza A. No included study evaluated rimantadine. LIMITATIONS: Mortality was assessed in high-risk patients, and generalizability is limited. The overall body of evidence is limited by risk for confounding and selection, reporting, and publication bias. CONCLUSION: Therapy with oral oseltamivir and inhaled zanamivir may provide a net benefit over no treatment of influenza. However, as with the randomized trials, the confidence in the estimates of the effects for decision making is low to very low. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCES: World Health Organization and McMaster University.

Differences in measured mammographic density in the menstrual cycle.

BACKGROUND: In premenopausal women, the sensitivity of screening mammography for detecting breast cancer has been reported to be greater in the follicular phase than in the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle, which may be due to differences in mammographic density. To examine this possible effect, we compared mammographic density in premenopausal women who had mammograms at different phases of the menstrual cycle. METHODS: We recruited premenopausal women ages 40 to 49 years from two mammography units in Toronto, recorded the first day of the last menstrual period (LMP) and measured mammographic density using Cumulus software. We classified the time of the mammography examination as having occurred in one of four intervals, 1 (first week after LMP), 2 (second week after LMP), 3 (third week after LMP) and 4 (>3 weeks after LMP), and compared mammographic density across intervals. RESULTS: Of the 936 women included in the analysis, 620 were examined by film and 316 by digital mammography. There were small and statistically nonsignificant variations in breast dense, nondense area, and percent density over the menstrual cycle in women examined by film mammography. Marginally significant variation in percent density was observed in the digital subset due to significant differences in the amount of nondense tissue over the menstrual cycle. CONCLUSION: Variations in mammographic density over the menstrual cycle were small and nonsignificant for women examined by either film or digital mammography. Thus, timing of mammography in menstrual cycle is unlikely to have a significant influence in breast cancer detection by screening mammography.

Antimicrobial susceptibility of Neisseria gonorrheae strains in three regions of Armenia.

OBJECTIVE: There are no data available on gonococcal susceptibility in the Caucasus region. We aimed to determine in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility of Neisseria gonorrheae in Armenia in order to update the national treatment protocol. METHODS: Isolates from men with urethral discharge presenting at 3 STI clinics in 3 different sites of Armenia were used to determine susceptibility of N. gonorrheae strains for 11 antimicrobials using the disc diffusion technique. RESULTS: Among the 101 isolates tested the susceptibility rate for penicillin, doxycycline, and kanamycin were 37.6, 25.7, and 80.2%, respectively. Sensitivity to quinolones was 95% for both ofloxacin and ciprofloxacin. All strains were susceptible to third-generation cephalosporins and to spectinomycin. Only 11% of strains were susceptible to all antibiotics tested. CONCLUSION: Third-generation cephalosporines and spectinomycin are suitable first-line regimens. Quinolones are not advisable as first-line treatment given current borderline susceptibility, known tendency for rapid resistance development in this class, and frequent over-the-counter use of this antibiotic in Armenia.

Sharp-focusing Bragg-Fresnel zone plate with Laue diffraction geometry.

The impact of decreased zone height on the focal properties of hard X-ray Bragg-Fresnel zone plates has been studied by numerical simulation. Decreased zone height allows for smaller zone widths and, although the efficiency of the lens is decreased, the signal-to-background ratio in the focal plane of the lens remains at a comparatively high level. This is distinct from an analogous case of ordinary phase zone plates.