Correlation of esophageal pH and motor abnormalities with endoscopic severity of reflux esophagitis.

Motility abnormalities, common in gastroesophageal reflux disease, are likely to be related to endoscopic esophagitis. We studied pH and manometry parameters in relation to the severity of esophagitis. Forty-seven patients with symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease for > 3 months were evaluated by: (i) endoscopy (grading of esophagitis by Savary-Miller classification); (ii) mucosal biopsy; (iii) manometry; and (iv) 24-h pH-metry. We found Savary-Miller's grades of: 0 (9 patients out of 47), I (16/47), II (16/47), III (4/47), IV (2/47). Distal esophageal contraction amplitude was lower in severe (grade II to IV) as compared with mild (grade 0 and I) esophagitis (49 [7-182] versus 83 [27-196] mmHg [P = 0.001]). The length and pressure in the lower esophageal sphincter (LES), duration and velocity of contraction in the body, number of episodes of reflux and long-duration reflux, longest reflux, median pH, per cent of time with pH < 4 and DeMeester scores were not significantly different between the two groups. The area under pH 4 showed a negative correlation with LES pressure and amplitude of distal esophageal contractions. We conclude that higher endoscopic grades of esophagitis are associated with lower amplitude of contraction in distal esophagus. Lower LES pressure and distal esophageal contraction amplitude are associated with greater area under curve for pH below 4.

A serological study of intrafamilial spread from patients with sporadic hepatitis E virus infection.

Intrafamilial transmission is rare in epidemic hepatitis E; its frequency in sporadic hepatitis E is not known. We followed up 86 household contacts (age range 4-75 years, mean +/- SD 32.4 +/- 15.8; 49 males), who were family members of patients with acute sporadic hepatitis E. Of the 86 contacts, 68 (79%) tested negative for IgG anti-hepatitis E virus antibodies. Four (4.7%) had IgM anti-hepatitis E virus antibodies at the time of diagnosis of hepatitis E in the index case; two of these contacts possibly had hepatitis E virus infection acquired simultaneously with that in the index case, and two could have had intrafamilial transmission. None developed serological evidence of hepatitis E virus infection over a period of 49 +/- 18 days after the diagnosis of index case, although a majority lacked IgG antibodies to hepatitis E virus and were likely to be susceptible. This suggests that person-to-person transmission is uncommon in sporadic hepatitis E.

Amantadine-resistant influenza A in a nursing facility.

Rapid index case treatment and amantadine prophylaxis were implemented in two nursing homes exposed to influenza A. Facility A had no isolation of cases, and 18 of 22 cases occurred after amantadine hydrochloride therapy was initiated. Three patients exhibited amantadine-resistant virus. Facility B had day 1 isolation of the index case. A facility-wide outbreak did not occur. The experience of these facilities suggests that concurrent amantadine treatment and prophylaxis without adequate case isolation may promote further influenza A infection in a nursing facility.

Comparison of pharmacokinetic and safety profiles of amantadine 50- and 100-mg daily doses in elderly nursing home residents.

Pharmacokinetic and adverse event profiles of 50- and 100-mg amantadine doses administered daily for up to 21 days for influenza prophylaxis were compared in 82 elderly nursing home residents (mean age 85 yrs, 68% female). We sought to determine if a standard daily dose of 50 mg would achieve mean steady-state trough serum concentrations (CPSSt) of 300 ng/ml and be associated with a lower frequency of adverse events than 100-mg doses. Statistically significant relationships were found between CPSSt and dosage (in mg/kg/day) and serum creatinine. Adverse events were more common with the 100-mg dose (24% vs 14%); 94% occurred in women. Amantadine CPSSt and apparent clearance were not significantly different between sexes. Thirty-nine residents (89%) receiving 50 mg daily achieved CPSSt below 300 ng/ml compared to 42% receiving 100 mg. Standard daily amantadine doses of 50 mg may not achieve adequate CPSSt in elderly nursing home residents, but 100 mg may lead to excessive CPSSt and adverse events, especially in the presence of renal impairment.