Duration of antiviral prophylaxis during nursing home outbreaks of influenza A: a comparison of 2 protocols

Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America: 2018 Update on Diagnosis, Treatment, Chemoprophylaxis, and Institutional Outbreak Management of Seasonal Influenzaa

These clinical practice guidelines are an update of the guidelines published by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) in 2009, prior to the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. This document addresses new information regarding diagnostic testing, treatment and chemoprophylaxis with antiviral medications, and issues related to institutional outbreak management for seasonal influenza. It is intended for use by primary care clinicians, obstetricians, emergency medicine providers, hospitalists, laboratorians, and infectious disease specialists, as well as other clinicians managing patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed influenza. The guidelines consider the care of children and adults, including special populations such as pregnant and postpartum women and immunocompromised patients.

Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America: 2018 Update on Diagnosis, Treatment, Chemoprophylaxis, and Institutional Outbreak Management of Seasonal Influenzaa

These clinical practice guidelines are an update of the guidelines published by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) in 2009, prior to the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. This document addresses new information regarding diagnostic testing, treatment and chemoprophylaxis with antiviral medications, and issues related to institutional outbreak management for seasonal influenza. It is intended for use by primary care clinicians, obstetricians, emergency medicine providers, hospitalists, laboratorians, and infectious disease specialists, as well as other clinicians managing patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed influenza. The guidelines consider the care of children and adults, including special populations such as pregnant and postpartum women and immunocompromised patients.

Duration of influenza outbreaks in long-term care facilities after antiviral prophylaxis initiation: Fraser Health, British Columbia, 2014-2017

To assess the duration of antiviral prophylaxis (AP), we conducted a retrospective outbreak review over 3 seasons, looking for acute respiratory illness (ARI) onset after 5 days of AP. Of 114 facility-level outbreaks with 352 unit-level outbreaks, we found only 1 case of laboratory-confirmed influenza after 5 days of AP. New cases of ARI after 5 days of AP should be investigated, and recommendations for AP duration could be shortened to 7-8 days or less.

Amantadine and rimantadine for influenza A in children and the elderly

BACKGROUND

Influenza is an acute respiratory illness caused by influenza A and B viruses. Complications may occur, especially among children and the elderly.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of amantadine and rimantadine in preventing, treating and shortening the duration of influenza A in children and the elderly.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1966 to September week 4, 2014) and EMBASE (1980 to October 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing amantadine and/or rimantadine with no intervention, placebo, other antivirals or different doses or schedules of amantadine or rimantadine in children and the elderly with influenza A.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the search results. We extracted and analysed data using the standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 12 studies (2494 participants: 1586 children and 908 elderly) comparing amantadine and rimantadine with placebo, paracetamol (one trial: 69 children) or zanamivir (two trials: 545 elderly) to treat influenza A.Amantadine was effective in preventing influenza A in children (773 participants, risk ratio (RR) 0.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.30). The assumed risk of influenza A in the control group was 10 per 100. The corresponding risk in the rimantadine group was one per 100 (95% CI 0 to 3). Nevertheless, the quality of the evidence was low and the safety of the drug was not well established.For treatment, rimantadine was beneficial in abating fever on day three of treatment in children: one selected study with low risk of bias, moderate evidence quality and 69 participants (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.91). The assumed risk was 38 per 100. The corresponding risk in the rimantadine group was 14 per 100 (95% CI 5 to 34).Rimantadine did not show any prophylactic effect in the elderly. The quality of evidence was very low: 103 participants (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.14 to 1.41). The assumed risk was 17 per 100. The corresponding risk in the rimantadine group was 7 per 100 (95% CI 2 to 23).There was no evidence of adverse effects caused by treatment with amantadine or rimantadine.We found no studies assessing amantadine in the elderly.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the evidence combined with a lack of knowledge about the safety of amantadine and the limited benefits of rimantadine, do not indicate that amantadine and rimantadine compared to control (placebo or paracetamol) could be useful in preventing, treating and shortening the duration of influenza A in children and the elderly.

A systematic mapping review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in care homes

Background

A thorough understanding of the literature generated from research in care homes is required to support evidence-based commissioning and delivery of healthcare. So far this research has not been compiled or described. We set out to describe the extent of the evidence base derived from randomized controlled trials conducted in care homes.

Methods

A systematic mapping review was conducted of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in care homes. Medline was searched for “Nursing Home”, “Residential Facilities” and “Homes for the Aged”; CINAHL for “nursing homes”, “residential facilities” and “skilled nursing facilities”; AMED for “Nursing homes”, “Long term care”, “Residential facilities” and “Randomized controlled trial”; and BNI for “Nursing Homes”, “Residential Care” and “Long-term care”. Articles were classified against a keywording strategy describing: year and country of publication; randomization, stratification and blinding methodology; target of intervention; intervention and control treatments; number of subjects and/or clusters; outcome measures; and results.

Results

3226 abstracts were identified and 291 articles reviewed in full. Most were recent (median age 6 years) and from the United States. A wide range of targets and interventions were identified. Studies were mostly functional (44 behaviour, 20 prescribing and 20 malnutrition studies) rather than disease-based. Over a quarter focussed on mental health.

Conclusions

This study is the first to collate data from all RCTs conducted in care homes and represents an important resource for those providing and commissioning healthcare for this sector. The evidence-base is rapidly developing. Several areas - influenza, falls, mobility, fractures, osteoporosis – are appropriate for systematic review. For other topics, researchers need to focus on outcome measures that can be compared and collated.

Amantadine and rimantadine for influenza A in children and the elderly

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness and safety of amantadine (AMT) and rimantadine (RMT) for preventing and treating influenza A in adults has been systematically reviewed. However, little is known about these treatments in children and the elderly.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of AMT and RMT in preventing and treating influenza A in children and the elderly.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to June week 3, 2011) and EMBASE (1980 to June 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing AMT and/or RMT with placebo, control, other antivirals or different doses or schedules of AMT or RMT, or both, or no intervention, in children and the elderly.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and assessed methodological quality. We resolved disagreements by consensus. In all comparisons except for one, we separately analysed the trials in children and the elderly using Review Manager software.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 12 studies involving 2494 participants (1586 children and adolescents and 908 elderly) compared AMT and RMT with placebo, paracetamol (one trial; 69 children) or zanamivir (two trials; 545 seniors). All studies were RCTs but most were still susceptible to bias. Two trials in the elderly had a high risk of bias because of incomplete outcome data. In one of those trials there was also a lack of outcome assessment blinding. Risk of bias was unclear in 10 studies due to unclear random sequence generation and allocation concealment. Only two trials in children were considered to have a low risk of bias.AMT was effective in preventing influenza A in children. A total of 773 participants were included in this outcome (risk ratio (RR) 0.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.30). The assumed risk of influenza in the control group was 10 per 100 and the corresponding risk in the RMT group was one per 100 (95% CI 0 to 3). The quality of the evidence was considered low. For treatment purposes, RMT was beneficial for abating fever on day three of treatment. For this purpose one study was selected with low risk of bias and included 69 children (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.91). The assumed risk was 38 per 100 and the corresponding risk in the RMT group was 14 per 100, 95% CI 5 to 34. The quality of the evidence was moderate.RMT did not show a prophylactic effect against influenza in the elderly, but the quality of evidence was considered very low. There were 103 participants (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.14 to 1.41, for an assumed risk of 17 per 100 and a corresponding risk in the RMT group of 7 per 100, 95% CI 2 to 23). We did not identify any AMT trials in the elderly that met our inclusion criteria.There was no evidence of adverse effects of AMT and RMT in children or an adverse effect of RMT in the elderly. We did not identify any AMT trials in the elderly that met our inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

AMT is effective in preventing influenza A in children but the NNTB is high (NNTB: 12 (95% CI 9 to 17). RMT probably helps the abatement of fever on day three of treatment, but the quality of the evidence is poor. Due to the small number of available studies, we could not reach a definitive conclusion on the safety of AMT or the effectiveness of RMT in preventing influenza in children and the elderly.

Seasonal influenza in adults and children--diagnosis, treatment, chemoprophylaxis, and institutional outbreak management: clinical practice guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Society of America

Guidelines for the treatment of persons with influenza virus infection were prepared by an Expert Panel of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. The evidence-based guidelines encompass diagnostic issues, treatment and chemoprophylaxis with antiviral medications, and issues related to institutional outbreak management for seasonal (interpandemic) influenza. They are intended for use by physicians in all medical specialties with direct patient care, because influenza virus infection is common in communities during influenza season and may be encountered by practitioners caring for a wide variety of patients.

Summer influenza outbreak in a home for the elderly: application of preventive measures

Influenza outbreaks occasionally occur in nursing homes (NHs) despite vaccination, but occurrence during summer is a rare event. We describe an influenza outbreak during a heatwave in 2005, and discuss the usefulness of rapid diagnosis in facilitating early intervention as well as appropriate infection control measures. An outbreak was observed in a single NH with 81 residents (mean age 88 years) and 48 healthcare workers (HCWs) and lasted seven days. Fever, cough and wheezing were reported as the main symptoms in 32 affected residents (39.5%) and 6 (12.5%) HCWs. Influenza was suspected and provisionally confirmed by a rapid diagnostic test performed on specimens from four patients. The outbreak was further confirmed by culture and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction in seven out of 10 residents. The strain was similar to the winter epidemic strain of the 2004-2005 season: H3N2A/New York/55/2004. As soon as the outbreak was confirmed, a crisis management team was set up with representatives of the local health authority and NH staff. A package of measures was implemented to control the outbreak, including patient isolation and the wearing of surgical masks by all residents and staff. A therapeutic course of oseltamivir was prescibed to 19/32 symptomatic patients and to 5/6 HCWs, and 47 residents and 42 remaining HCWs received a prophylactic post-exposure regimen. The outbreak ended within 48 h. Case fatality rate was 15.6% among residents. Pre-outbreak influenza vaccine coverage among the residents was 93.5% and 41.7% in HCWs. The rapid diagnostic test enabled prompt action to be taken, which facilitated infection control measures.

Amantadine and rimantadine for influenza A in children and the elderly

BACKGROUND

Although amantadine (AMT) and rimantadine (RMT) are used to relieve or treat influenza A symptoms in healthy adults, little is known about the effectiveness and safety of these antivirals in preventing and treating influenza A in children and the elderly.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to systematically consider evidence on the effectiveness and safety of AMT and RMT in preventing and treating influenza A in children and the elderly.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2007, issue 3); MEDLINE (1966 to July 2007) and EMBASE (1980 to July 2007).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing AMT and/or RMT in children and the elderly with placebo, control, other antivirals or comparing different doses or schedules of AMT and/or RMT or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and assessed methodological quality. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. In all comparisons except for one, the trials in children and in the elderly were analysed separately. Data were analysed and reported using Cochrane Review Manager 4.2. software.

MAIN RESULTS

In children, RMT was effective in the abatement of fever on day three of treatment. AMT showed a prophylactic effect against influenza A infection. AMT and RMT were not related to an increase in the occurrence of adverse effects. RMT also was considered to be well tolerated by the elderly, but showed no prophylactic effect. Different doses were comparable in the prophylaxis of influenza in the elderly, as well as in reporting adverse effects. Zanamivir prevented influenza A more effectively than RMT in the elderly.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

AMT was effective in the prophylaxis of influenza A in children. As confounding matters might have affected our findings, caution should be taken when considering which patients should to be given this prophylactic. Our conclusions about effectiveness of both antivirals for the treatment of influenza A in children were limited to a proven benefit of RMT in the abatement of fever on day three of treatment. Due to the small number of available studies we could not reach a definitive conclusion on the safety of AMT or the effectiveness of RMT in preventing influenza in children and the elderly.

Inhaled zanamivir versus rimantadine for the control of influenza in a highly vaccinated long-term care population

BACKGROUND

Despite vaccination, influenza commonly causes morbidity and mortality in institutional settings. Influenza control with rimantadine and amantadine is limited by emergence and transmission of drug-resistant influenza A variants, ineffectiveness against influenza B, and toxicity. This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of zanamivir versus rimantadine for influenza outbreak control in long-term care facilities.

METHODS

This double-blind, randomized, controlled study prospectively enrolled nursing home residents for 3 influenza seasons (1997 to 2000). Vaccine was offered to all subjects. Following influenza outbreak declaration, subjects were randomized to inhaled zanamivir 10 mg or standard of care (rimantadine 100 mg for influenza A or placebo for influenza B) once daily for 14 days. The proportion of randomized subjects developing symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed influenza during prophylaxis was the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

Of 482 randomizations (238 zanamivir, 231 rimantadine, 13 placebo), 96% of subjects were elderly or had high-risk conditions; over 90% were vaccinated. Symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed influenza occurred in 3% of zanamivir subjects and 8% of rimantadine subjects during chemoprophylaxis (P = .038; additional protective efficacy for zanamivir over rimantadine = 61%). Since only 25 subjects were randomized during 2 influenza B outbreaks and none developed influenza, the influenza B data were excluded from further analysis. Zanamivir was well tolerated and unassociated with emergence of resistant virus; rimantadine-resistant variants were common.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first prospective, controlled study demonstrating effectiveness of chemoprophylaxis for influenza outbreak control. Zanamivir prevents symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed influenza more effectively than rimantadine, is unassociated with resistant virus, and has a favorable safety profile. Zanamivir is an appropriate alternative for influenza outbreak control among institutionalized vaccinated elderly.

Inhaled Zanamivir Versus Placebo for the Prevention of Influenza Outbreaks in an Unvaccinated Long-term Care Population

BACKGROUND

Antiviral chemoprophylaxis effectiveness for influenza control has not been prospectively established for unvaccinated residents of long-term care facilities. This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of zanamivir against the standard of care (no intervention, ie, placebo) for influenza outbreak control in a largely unvaccinated institutionalized population.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of zanamivir versus placebo for influenza outbreak control in long-term care facilities.

METHODS

This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study prospectively enrolled/followed residents of long-term care facilities (LTCF) at 12 centers for 1 to 3 influenza seasons (1997 to 2000). Following influenza outbreak declaration, asymptomatic subjects were randomized for prophylaxis to inhaled zanamivir 10 mg or inhaled placebo given once daily for 14 days. The proportion of randomized subjects who during prophylaxis developed symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed influenza (SLCI) was the primary end point.

RESULTS

Influenza outbreaks were explosive. The attack rates varied from 9.5 to 14.8 per 100 residents. Of 1763 consents given and resulting in 494 randomizations, 49% received zanamivir and 51% placebo; 66% were elderly and 9% were vaccinated. SLCI occurred in 6% of zanamivir and 9% of placebo subjects (P = .355; protective efficacy for zanamivir = 29%, 95% confidence interval 31% to 62%), and symptomatic influenza confirmed by culture in 2% and 6%, respectively (P = .052; protective efficacy = 65%, 95% confidence interval 8.5% to 86%). Zanamivir use was also associated with a 70% (95% confidence interval 13% to 89%) reduction in laboratory-confirmed influenza with fever (2% vs 6%, P = .043). Influenza B was not detected. Zanamivir was well tolerated. No virus isolate demonstrated zanamivir resistance.

CONCLUSIONS

The protective efficacy of zanamivir versus placebo for SLCI was marginal, for all laboratory confirmed illnesses, but significant against culture proven and febrile influenza, suggesting zanamivir can be effective for outbreak control and symptom reduction of unvaccinated institutionalized residents. Zanamivir had an acceptable safety profile in elderly, high-risk LTCF residents and was not associated with the emergence of resistant strains.

Influenza prophylaxis in the long-term care facility: a case-control study of the risk factors for adverse drug reactions to amantadine

BACKGROUND

Amantadine hydrochloride remains an inexpensive means of influenza A prophylaxis, but it is reported to have a high incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) compared with newer, more expensive drugs.

OBJECTIVE

This study attempted to determine the effects of poor renal function on the rate of ADRs and any other variables on the tolerability of prophylaxis in this population. This would allow a high-risk subset of LTCF residents to be identified before prophylaxis, thus decreasing the risk for ADRs from amantadine.

METHODS

In this retrospective case-control study, a course of standardized low-dose (100-mg/d tablets) amantadine prophylaxis was ordered for all 242 residents of Ten Broeck Commons LTCF in Lake Katrine, New York, without influenza A for 14 days. Chart data of residents who developed ADRs (ADR group) were compared with those of a selected group who did not (control group). Residents' age, sex, renal function (blood urea nitrogen, serum creatinine, and creatinine clearance), dementia diagnosis, and number and classes of medications were compared.

RESULTS

The ADR group comprised 25 residents (21 women, 4 men; mean [SD] age, 84.8 [8.4] years); the control group, 29 residents (23 women, 6 men; mean [SD] age, 85.7 [7.5] years). The development of ADRs was not associated with differences in age, sex, renal function, or any medical condition, including measured, preexisting mental status changes between the groups. The overall risk for ADRs in the 242 residents was highest between days 8 and 14 of prophylaxis (17 residents [7.0%]) compared with the first 7 days (8 residents [3.3%]). Acute confusion was the most common ADR. All ADRs resolved on cessation of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

No preexisting medical condition was statistically associated with an increased risk for ADRs, but an association with the number of days of prophylaxis was observed. By shortening prophylaxis to 7 days, the ADR risk may be lowered to be commensurate with more expensive medications.

Antivirals for influenza: what is their role in the older patient?

Influenza infection is a cause of high morbidity and mortality in the elderly living in the community or in long-term care facilities. Yearly immunisation is the most important means for prevention of infection. However, protection by vaccination in the elderly is incomplete, and influenza infections and outbreaks in long-term care facilities still occur. Symptoms of influenza include fever, chills, headache, myalgia and respiratory symptoms. These clinical features overlap considerably with other co-circulating respiratory viruses such as respiratory syncytial virus and parainfluenza virus. Elderly and debilitated patients with influenza may present with less prominent respiratory symptoms and may present only with fever, lassitude and confusion. Antiviral prophylaxis and treatment with amantadine and rimantadine have been given in the past but adverse effects and early development of drug resistance have limited their use. The newer antivirals zanamivir and oseltamivir are equally effective and have the advantage of being well tolerated and active against both influenza A and B without the development of resistance. However, they are costly. Early identification and diagnosis of influenza illnesses are crucial since treatment with antiviral agents should be started within 48 hours of the beginning of illness.

Current strategies for management of influenza in the elderly population

Influenza virus remains among the most important pathogens infecting elderly people. Vaccination is the most cost-effective strategy to reduce morbidity and mortality due to influenza. For persons who are not vaccinated or for whom vaccines fail to prevent influenza, there are 2 classes of efficacious drugs for treatment or chemoprophylaxis: M2 channel inhibitors and neuraminidase inhibitors. Effective treatment, however, must commence within 48 h of the onset of symptoms, which can create problems for patients who wait to see whether their symptoms worsen or improve. Older adults who have relocated to the congregate housing environments of assisted living and long-term care facilities deserve special consideration, because influenza exposure risks are different for this group. Strategies for control of influenza must combine preventive approaches, such as vaccination, educational approaches, and the introduction of policies that allow health care professionals anticipate, identify, and efficiently respond to influenza outbreaks.

Influenza in the acute hospital setting

Influenza poses special hazards inside healthcare facilities and can cause explosive outbreaks of illness. Healthcare workers are at risk of acquiring influenza and thus serve as an important reservoir for patients under their care. Annual influenza immunisation of high-risk persons and their contacts, including healthcare workers, is the primary means of preventing nosocomial influenza. Despite influenza vaccine effectiveness, it is substantially underused by healthcare providers. Influenza can be diagnosed by culturing the virus from respiratory secretions and by rapid antigen detection kits; recognition of a nosocomial outbreak is important in order to employ infection-control efforts. Optimal control of influenza in the acute-care setting should focus upon reducing potential influenza reservoirs in the hospital, including: isolating patients with suspected or documented influenza, sending home healthcare providers or staff who exhibit typical symptoms of influenza, and discouraging persons with febrile respiratory illness from visiting the hospital during a known influenza outbreak in the community. (Note: influenza and other respiratory viruses can cause non-febrile illness but are still transmissible.) The antiviral M2 protein inhibitors (amantadine, rimantadine) and neuraminidase inhibitors (zanamivir, oseltamivir) have proven efficacy in treating and preventing influenza illness; however, their role in the prevention and control of influenza in the acute hospital setting remains to be more fully studied.

Prophylaxis and treatment of influenza virus infection

Influenza virus infections remain an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, a recurrence of pandemic influenza remains a real possibility. There are now effective ways to both prevent and treat influenza. Prevention of infection is most effectively accomplished by vaccination. Vaccination with the inactivated, intramuscular influenza vaccine has been clearly demonstrated to reduce serious morbidity and mortality associated with influenza infection, especially in groups of patients at high risk (e.g. the elderly). However, the inactivated, intramuscular vaccine does not strongly induce cell-mediated or mucosal immune responses, and protection induced by the vaccine is highly strain specific. Live, attenuated influenza vaccines administered intranasally have been studied in clinical trials and shown to elicit stronger mucosal and cell-mediated immune responses. Live, attenuated vaccines appear to be more effective for inducing protective immunity in children or the elderly than inactivated, intramuscular vaccines. Additionally, novel vaccine methodologies employing conserved components of influenza virus or viral DNA are being developed. Preclinical studies suggest that these approaches may lead to methods of vaccination that could induce immunity against diverse strains or subtypes of influenza. Because of the limitations of vaccination, antiviral therapy continues to play an important role in the control of influenza. Two major classes of antivirals have demonstrated ability to prevent or treat influenza in clinical trials: the adamantanes and the neuraminidase inhibitors. The adamantanes (amantadine and rimantadine) have been in use for many years. They inhibit viral uncoating by blocking the proton channel activity of the influenza A viral M2 protein. Limitations of the adamantanes include lack of activity against influenza B, toxicity (especially in the elderly), and the rapid development of resistance. The neuraminidase inhibitors were designed to interfere with the conserved sialic acid binding site of the viral neuraminidase and act against both influenza A and B with a high degree of specificity when administered by the oral (oseltamivir) or inhaled (zanamivir) route. The neuraminidase inhibitors have relatively low toxicity, and viral resistance to these inhibitors appears to be uncommon. Additional novel antivirals that target other phases of the life cycle of influenza are in preclinical development. For example, recombinant collectins inhibit replication of influenza by binding to the viral haemagglutinin as well as altering phagocyte responses to the virus. Recombinant techniques have been used for generation of antiviral proteins (e.g. modified collectins) or oligonucleotides. Greater understanding of the biology of influenza viruses has already resulted in significant advances in the management of this important pathogen. Further advances in vaccination and antiviral therapy of influenza should remain a high priority.

[What is current opinion of antiviral therapy for the flu in 2001?]

INTRODUCTION

The availability of new neuraminidase inhibitors which interact on the influenza A and B viruses could be the start of a new approach to flu treatment. Until now, vaccination has been the principal medical treatment, except in the case of a pandemic caused by antigenic shifts. In this article the authors will answer the following questions: Potentially, is there room for antiviral drugs and why? Are these drugs efficient and according to which criteria? Who are they for? And what indications must be followed? Are they well tolerated? Do they induce any viral resistance? M2 protein inhibitors (i.e., amantadine and rimantadine) are compared with neuraminidase inhibitors (i.e., zanamivir and oseltamivir).

CURRENT KNOWLEDGE AND KEY POINTS

Neuraminidase inhibitors prescribed during the first 48 h have a medical curative effectiveness on non-complicated forms carried by healthy patients--symptoms last no longer than 1 to 3 days and their severity is reduced. This efficiency could potentially concern unexpected complications due to the diminution of antibiotics absorption. The inhibitors seem to induce little resistance and are responsive to influenza B as opposed to the M2 protein inhibitors. They seem to be well-tolerated by patients and they are also efficient when it comes to prophylaxis measures.

FUTURE PROSPECTS AND PROJECTS

It is assumed that these treatments are used in a curative and preventive manner in order to give them their full strategic importance (their use is currently forbidden in France). This importance will require that physicians and the population be well aware of the epidemic and that responsive physicians who know the medical indications quickly implement the treatment. It is necessary to carry out surveys with those at risk who are seriously ill with the flu in order to measure ratios such as cost efficiency. The use of these treatments will have to be evaluated, bearing special attention on the risks of the emergence of resistant viruses and on the impact on vaccination.

Respiratory viral infections in the elderly

Viral respiratory infections represent a significant challenge for those interested in improving the health of the elderly. Influenza continues to result in a large burden of excess morbidity and mortality. Two effective measures, inactivated influenza vaccine, and the antiviral drugs rimantadine and amantadine, are currently available for control of this disease. Inactivated vaccine should be given yearly to all of those over the age of 65, as well as younger individuals with high-risk medical conditions and individuals delivering care to such persons. Live, intranasally administered attenuated influenza vaccines are also in development, and may be useful in combination with inactivated vaccine in the elderly. The antiviral drugs amantadine and rimantadine are effective in the treatment and prevention of influenza A, although rimantadine is associated with fewer side-effects. Recently, the inhaled neuraminidase inhibitor zanamivir, which is active against both influenza A and B viruses, was licensed for use in uncomplicated influenza. The role of this drug in treatment and prevention of influenza in the elderly remains to be determined. Additional neuraminidase inhibitors are also being developed. In addition, to influenza, respiratory infections with respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza virus, rhinovirus, and coronavirus have been identified as potential problems in the elderly. With increasing attention, it is probable that the impact of these infections in this age group will be more extensively documented. Understanding of the immunology and pathogenesis of these infections in elderly adults is in its infancy, and considerable additional work will need to be performed towards development of effective control measures.

Non-influenza respiratory viruses may overlap and obscure influenza activity

OBJECTIVE

To report the number and timing of influenza A isolates, as well as overlapping respiratory viruses. Co-circulating respiratory viruses may obscure the determination of influenza activity.

DESIGN

Prospective clinical surveillance for the new onset of respiratory illness followed by viral cultures during seven separate influenza seasons.

SETTING

The Wisconsin Veterans Home, a skilled nursing facility for veterans and their spouses.

RESULTS

Influenza A isolates were encountered in greater numbers than non-influenza A isolates during three seasons. Seasonal variability is striking. In December 1992, we identified a large outbreak of respiratory illness. Influenza type B was cultured from 102 residents. In December 1995, influenza A was cultured from 285 people in Wisconsin. At that time, we identified outbreaks of respiratory illness in two of our four buildings. Based on statewide data, we suspected an influenza outbreak; however, 26 isolates of parainfluenza virus type 1 were cultured with no influenza. The potential importance of culturing at the end of the season was demonstrated in 1991-1992 when an outbreak of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) overlapped and extended beyond influenza A activity.

CONCLUSIONS

When interpreting new clinical respiratory illnesses as a basis for declaring an outbreak of influenza A, clinicians should realize that co-circulating respiratory viruses can account for clinical illnesses. Clinicians might utilize healthcare dollars efficiently by performing cultures to focus the timing of influenza A chemoprophylaxis. Cultures could be performed when clinical outbreak criteria are approached to confirm an outbreak. Culturing of new respiratory illness could begin again before the anticipated discontinuation of prophylaxis (approximately 2 weeks).

Prevention of influenza in long-term-care facilities. Long-Term-Care Committee of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America

Influenza is a frequent cause of epidemic and endemic respiratory illness in long-term-care facilities (LTCFs), resulting in considerable morbidity and mortality. Detection of influenza outbreaks in this setting can be difficult, because the clinical presentation in older adults is atypical and other pathogens also cause influenza-like illness (ILI) during the influenza season. Use of the standard case definition for influenza has not been effective in detecting episodes in residents of LTCFs. Alternative case-definitions that reflect the atypical presentation of influenza in this population have been recommended but not validated. The use of rapid tests for the detection of influenza in conjunction with more sensitive case definitions of ILI may lead to the earlier detection of influenza outbreaks in LTCFs, earlier initiation of infection control measures, and reduction in transmission. The definition of outbreak, eg, the number of episodes of ILI or episodes of confirmed influenza A that would result in the initiation of antiviral chemoprophylaxis, remains controversial in this setting. The use of newer antivirals could limit the side effects seen in older adults in LTCFs. However, annual vaccination of residents and staff remains the most effective way to prevent the introduction of influenza A or influenza B into LTCFs. In addition, vaccination of LTCF residents reduces rates of illness and pneumonia due to influenza, as well as cardiopulmonary exacerbation, hospitalization, and death.

Effectively treating common infections in residents of long-term care facilities

Clinicians involved in caring for institutionalized elderly frequently must treat common infections endemic to the setting. Numerous factors specific to these patients make accurate diagnosis and management more difficult than in healthy ambulatory adults. Three infections are commonly encountered in residents of long-term care facilities: bacterial pneumonia, urinary tract infections, and skin and soft tissue infections. More antimicrobial agents are available now than ever before; therefore, judicious administration of drugs and familiarity with current treatment recommendations are imperative.