Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in healthy adults

Neuraminidase inhibitors for influenza: a systematic review and meta-analysis of regulatory and mortality data

BACKGROUND

Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are stockpiled and recommended by public health agencies for treating and preventing seasonal and pandemic influenza. They are used clinically worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

To (1) describe the potential benefits and harms of NIs for influenza in all age groups by reviewing all clinical study reports (CSRs) of published and unpublished randomised, placebo-controlled trials and regulatory comments; and (2) determine the effect of oseltamivir (Tamiflu(®), Roche) treatment on mortality in patients with 2009A/H1N1 influenza.

METHODS

We searched trial registries, electronic databases and corresponded with regulators and sponsors to identify randomised trials of NIs. We requested full CSRs and accessed regulators' comments. We included only those trials for which we had CSRs. To examine the effects of oseltamivir on 2009A/H1N1 influenza mortality, we requested individual patient data (IPD) from corresponding authors of all included observational studies.

RESULTS

Effect of oseltamivir and zanamivir (Relenza®, GlaxoSmithKline) in the prevention and treatment of influenza: Oseltamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults by 16.8 hours [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.4 to 25.1 hours]. Zanamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults by 0.60 days (95% CI 0.39 to 0.81 days). Oseltamivir reduced unverified pneumonia in adult treatment [risk difference (RD) 1.00%, 95% CI 0.22% to 1.49%]; similar findings were observed with zanamivir prophylaxis in adults (RD 0.32%, 95% CI 0.09% to 0.41%). Oseltamivir treatment of adults increased the risk of nausea (RD 3.66%, 95% CI 0.90% to 7.39%) and vomiting (RD 4.56%, 95% CI 2.39% to 7.58%). In the treatment of children, oseltamivir induced vomiting (RD 5.34%, 95% CI 1.75% to 10.29%). Both oseltamivir and zanamivir prophylaxis reduced the risk of symptomatic influenza in individuals (oseltamivir RD 3.05%, 95% CI 1.83% to 3.88%; zanamivir RD 1.98%, 95% CI 0.98% to 2.54%) and in households (oseltamivir RD 13.6%, 95% CI 9.52% to 15.47%; zanamivir RD 14.84%, 95% CI 12.18% to 16.55%). Oseltamivir increased psychiatric adverse events in the combined on- and off-treatment periods (RD 1.06%, 95% CI 0.07% to 2.76%) and the risk of headaches while on treatment (RD 3.15%, 95% CI 0.88% to 5.78%). Effect of oseltamivir on mortality in patients with 2009A/H1N1 influenza: Analysis of summary data of 30 studies as well as IPD of four studies showed evidence of time-dependent bias. After adjusting for time-dependent bias and potential confounding variables, competing risks analysis of the IPD showed insufficient evidence that oseltamivir reduced the risk of mortality (hazard ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.65).

CONCLUSIONS

Oseltamivir and zanamivir cause small reductions in the time to first alleviation of influenza symptoms in adults. The use of oseltamivir increases the risk of nausea, vomiting, psychiatric events in adults and vomiting in children. Oseltamivir has no protective effect on mortality among patients with 2009A/H1N1 influenza. Prophylaxis with either NI may reduce symptomatic influenza in individuals and in households. The balance between benefits and harms should be considered when making decisions about use of NIs for either prophylaxis or treatment of influenza.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002245.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Travellers and influenza: risks and prevention

BACKGROUND

Influenza viruses are among the major causes of serious human respiratory tract infection worldwide. In line with the high disease burden attributable to influenza, these viruses play an important, but often neglected, role in travel medicine. Guidelines and recommendations regarding prevention and management of influenza in travellers are scarce. Of special interest for travel medicine are risk populations and also circumstances that facilitate influenza virus transmission and spread, like travel by airplane or cruise ship and mass gatherings.

METHODS

We conducted a PUBMED/MEDLINE search for a combination of the MeSH terms Influenza virus, travel, mass gathering, large scale events and cruise ship. In addition we gathered guidelines and recommendations from selected countries and regarding influenza prevention and management in travellers. By reviewing these search results in the light of published knowledge in the fields of influenza prevention and management, we present best practice advice for the prevention and management of influenza in travel medicine.

RESULTS

Seasonal influenza is among the most prevalent infectious diseases in travellers. Known host-associated risk factors include extremes of age and being immune-compromised, while the most relevant environmental factors are associated with holiday cruises and mass gatherings.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-travel advice should address influenza and its prevention for travellers, whenever appropriate on the basis of the epidemiological situation concerned. Preventative measures should be strongly recommended for travellers at high-risk for developing complications. In addition, seasonal influenza vaccination should be considered for any traveller wishing to reduce the risk of incapacitation, particularly cruise ship crew and passengers, as well as those participating in mass gatherings. Besides advice concerning preventive measures and vaccination, advice on the use of antivirals may be considered for some travellers.

Antiviral Medications in Seasonal and Pandemic Influenza

BACKGROUND

Amantadine, oseltamivir, and zanamivir are currently available in Germany for the prevention and treatment of influenza. We review their efficacy and side-effect profiles.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent randomized and controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews retrieved by a systematic literature search, and on other relevant literature.

RESULTS

The efficacy of antiviral drugs for the prevention of symptomatic influenza ranges from 60% to 90% (number needed to treat [NNT], 8-89) depending on the population and type of drug in question. Antiviral drugs shorten the duration of illness by 0.5-1.5 days when given within 48 hours of the onset of symptoms. Neuraminidase inhibitors do not significantly lower the incidence of bronchitis in adults, or of otitis media in children; they do have a positive effect against reported, but not necessarily diagnostically confirmed pneumonia in adults (NNT, 89 [50-232]). The RCTs yielded no information about possible effects on severe cases of influenza, or on mortality, as they included only mildly or moderately ill patients, but observational studies have yielded some evidence of benefit. The most common side effects of oseltamivir (>10%) are headache, nausea, and vomiting; of zanamivir (>1%), a skin rash; and of amantadine (>1%), loss of appetite, nausea, and central nervous effects.

CONCLUSION

The benefits of antiviral drugs, particularly neuraminidase inhibitors, outweigh their risks. In deciding whether to use them, physicians should consider the properties of the currently circulating viruses and the patient's individual risk constellation, as directed in clinical treatment recommendations.

Debate Regarding Oseltamivir Use for Seasonal and Pandemic Influenza

A debate about the market-leading influenza antiviral medication, oseltamivir, which initially focused on treatment for generally mild illness, has been expanded to question the wisdom of stockpiling for use in future influenza pandemics. Although randomized controlled trial evidence confirms that oseltamivir will reduce symptom duration by 17-25 hours among otherwise healthy adolescents and adults with community-managed disease, no randomized controlled trials have examined the effectiveness of oseltamivir against more serious outcomes. Observational studies, although criticized on methodologic grounds, suggest that oseltamivir given early can reduce the risk for death by half among persons hospitalized with confirmed infection caused by influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and influenza A(H5N1) viruses. However, available randomized controlled trial data may not be able to capture the effect of oseltamivir use among hospitalized patients with severe disease. We assert that data on outpatients with relatively mild disease should not form the basis for policies on the management of more severe disease.

Inactivated Influenza Vaccine That Provides Rapid, Innate-Immune-System-Mediated Protection and Subsequent Long-Term Adaptive Immunity

The continual threat to global health posed by influenza has led to increased efforts to improve the effectiveness of influenza vaccines for use in epidemics and pandemics. We show in this study that formulation of a low dose of inactivated detergent-split influenza vaccine with a Toll-like receptor 2 (TLR2) agonist-based lipopeptide adjuvant (R₄Pam₂Cys) provides (i) immediate, antigen-independent immunity mediated by the innate immune system and (ii) significant enhancement of antigen-dependent immunity which exhibits an increased breadth of effector function. Intranasal administration of mice with vaccine formulated with R₄Pam₂Cys but not vaccine alone provides protection against both homologous and serologically distinct (heterologous) viral strains within a day of administration. Vaccination in the presence of R₄Pam₂Cys subsequently also induces high levels of systemic IgM, IgG1, and IgG2b antibodies and pulmonary IgA antibodies that inhibit hemagglutination (HA) and neuraminidase (NA) activities of homologous but not heterologous virus. Improved primary virus nucleoprotein (NP)-specific CD8⁺ T cell responses are also induced by the use of R₄Pam₂Cys and are associated with robust recall responses to provide heterologous protection. These protective effects are demonstrated in wild-type and antibody-deficient animals but not in those depleted of CD8⁺ T cells. Using a contact-dependent virus transmission model, we also found that heterologous virus transmission from vaccinated mice to naive mice is significantly reduced. These results demonstrate the potential of adding a TLR2 agonist to an existing seasonal influenza vaccine to improve its utility by inducing immediate short-term nonspecific antiviral protection and also antigen-specific responses to provide homologous and heterologous immunity.

The innate and adaptive immune systems differ in mechanisms, specificities, and times at which they take effect. The innate immune system responds within hours of exposure to infectious agents, while adaptive immunity takes several days to become effective. Here we show, by using a simple lipopeptide-based TLR2 agonist, that an influenza detergent-split vaccine can be made to simultaneously stimulate and amplify both systems to provide immediate antiviral protection while giving the adaptive immune system time to implement long-term immunity. Both types of immunity induced by this approach protect against vaccine-matched as well as unrelated virus strains and potentially even against strains yet to be encountered. Conferring dual functionality to influenza vaccines is beneficial for improving community protection, particularly during periods between the onset of an outbreak and the time when a vaccine becomes available or in scenarios in which mass vaccination with a strain to which the population is immunologically naive is imperative.

Streptococcus pneumoniae NanC: STRUCTURAL INSIGHTS INTO THE SPECIFICITY AND MECHANISM OF A SIALIDASE THAT PRODUCES A SIALIDASE INHIBITOR

Streptococcus pneumoniae is an important human pathogen that causes a range of disease states. Sialidases are important bacterial virulence factors. There are three pneumococcal sialidases: NanA, NanB, and NanC. NanC is an unusual sialidase in that its primary reaction product is 2-deoxy-2,3-didehydro-N-acetylneuraminic acid (Neu5Ac2en, also known as DANA), a nonspecific hydrolytic sialidase inhibitor. The production of Neu5Ac2en from α2–3-linked sialosides by the catalytic domain is confirmed within a crystal structure. A covalent complex with 3-fluoro-β-N-acetylneuraminic acid is also presented, suggesting a common mechanism with other sialidases up to the final step of product formation. A conformation change in an active site hydrophobic loop on ligand binding constricts the entrance to the active site. In addition, the distance between the catalytic acid/base (Asp-315) and the ligand anomeric carbon is unusually short. These features facilitate a novel sialidase reaction in which the final step of product formation is direct abstraction of the C3 proton by the active site aspartic acid, forming Neu5Ac2en. NanC also possesses a carbohydrate-binding module, which is shown to bind α2–3- and α2–6-linked sialosides, as well as N-acetylneuraminic acid, which is captured in the crystal structure following hydration of Neu5Ac2en by NanC. Overall, the pneumococcal sialidases show remarkable mechanistic diversity while maintaining a common structural scaffold.

Use of neuraminidase inhibitors in primary health care during pandemic and seasonal influenza between 2009 and 2013

BACKGROUND

In a context of controversy about influenza antiviral treatments, this study assessed primary health-care physicians' prescription of neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) in France during pandemic and seasonal influenza between 2009 and 2013.

METHODS

This observational study, using data recorded in three national databases, estimated the rate of NI prescription among influenza-like illness (ILI) patients seen in GP and paediatrician consultations, and determined factors associated with this prescription according to a multivariate analysis. NI delivery by pharmacists was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Rates of NI prescription were estimated to be 61.1% among ILI patients with a severe influenza risk factor seen in GP consultation during the A(H1N1)pdm2009 pandemic versus an average rate of 25.9% during the three following seasonal influenza epidemics. Factors associated with NI prescription were a chronic disease in patients under 65 years (OR 14.85; 95% CI 13.00, 16.97) and in those aged 65 and older (OR 7.54; 5.86, 9.70), an age ≥65 years in patients without chronic disease (OR 1.35; 1.04, 1.74), a pregnancy (OR 10.63; 7.67, 15.76), obesity (OR 4.67; 3.50, 6.22) and a consultation during the pandemic A(H1N1)pdm2009 (OR 3.19; 2.93, 3.48). The number of antiviral treatments delivered by pharmacists during the A(H1N1)pdm2009 pandemic was 835 per 100,000 inhabitants, and an average of 275 per 100,000 inhabitants during the three following seasonal influenza epidemics.

CONCLUSIONS

Although physicians seem to follow the recommended indications for NIs in primary health-care practice, this study confirms the low rate of NI prescription to ILI patients with a severe influenza risk factor, especially during seasonal epidemics.

Beyond open big data: addressing unreliable research

The National Institute of Health invests US $30.9 billion annually in medical research. However, the subsequent impact of this research output on society and the economy is amplified dramatically as a result of the actual medical treatments, biomedical innovations, and various commercial enterprises that emanate from and depend on these findings. It is therefore a great concern to discover that much of published research is unreliable. We propose extending the open data concept to the culture of the scientific research community. By dialing down unproductive features of secrecy and competition, while ramping up cooperation and transparency, we make a case that what is published would then be less susceptible to the sometimes corrupting and confounding pressures to be first or journalistically attractive, which can compromise the more fundamental need to be robustly correct.

Risk of bias in industry-funded oseltamivir trials: comparison of core reports versus full clinical study reports

BACKGROUND

The Cochrane risk of bias tool is a prominent instrument used to evaluate potential biases in clinical trials. In three updates of our Cochrane review on neuraminidase inhibitors, we assessed risk of bias on the same trials using different levels of detail: the trials in journal publications, in core reports, and in full clinical study reports. Here we analyse whether progressively greater amounts of information and detail in full clinical study reports (including trial protocols, statistical analysis plans, certificates of analyses, individual participant data listings and randomisation lists) affected our risk of bias assessments.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess and compare risk of bias in 14 oseltamivir trials (reported in 10 clinical study reports) obtained from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the manufacturer, Roche. With more detailed information, reported in clinical study reports, no previous assessment of 'high' risk of bias was reclassified as 'low' or 'unclear' in the main analysis, and over half (55%, 34/62) of the previous assessments of 'low' risk of bias were reclassified as 'high'. Most assessments of 'unclear' risk of bias (67%, or 28/42) were reclassified as 'high' risk of bias when our judgements were based on full clinical study reports. The limits of our study were our relative inexperience in dealing with large information sets, sometimes subjective bias judgements and focus on industry trials. Comparison with journal publications was not possible because of the low number of trials published.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that as information increased in the document, this increased our assessment of bias. This may mean that risk of bias has been insufficiently assessed in Cochrane reviews based on journal publications.

Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are stockpiled and recommended by public health agencies for treating and preventing seasonal and pandemic influenza. They are used clinically worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the potential benefits and harms of NIs for influenza in all age groups by reviewing all clinical study reports of published and unpublished randomised, placebo-controlled trials and regulatory comments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched trial registries, electronic databases (to 22 July 2013) and regulatory archives, and corresponded with manufacturers to identify all trials. We also requested clinical study reports. We focused on the primary data sources of manufacturers but we checked that there were no published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from non-manufacturer sources by running electronic searches in the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Embase.com, PubMed (not MEDLINE), the Database of Reviews of Effects, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Economic Evaluations Database.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, placebo-controlled trials on adults and children with confirmed or suspected exposure to naturally occurring influenza.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted clinical study reports and assessed risk of bias using purpose-built instruments. We analysed the effects of zanamivir and oseltamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms, influenza outcomes, complications, hospitalisations and adverse events in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. All trials were sponsored by the manufacturers.

MAIN RESULTS

We obtained 107 clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), GlaxoSmithKline and Roche. We accessed comments by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), EMA and Japanese regulator. We included 53 trials in Stage 1 (a judgement of appropriate study design) and 46 in Stage 2 (formal analysis), including 20 oseltamivir (9623 participants) and 26 zanamivir trials (14,628 participants). Inadequate reporting put most of the zanamivir studies and half of the oseltamivir studies at a high risk of selection bias. There were inadequate measures in place to protect 11 studies of oseltamivir from performance bias due to non-identical presentation of placebo. Attrition bias was high across the oseltamivir studies and there was also evidence of selective reporting for both the zanamivir and oseltamivir studies. The placebo interventions in both sets of trials may have contained active substances. Time to first symptom alleviation. For the treatment of adults, oseltamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms by 16.8 hours (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.4 to 25.1 hours, P < 0.0001). This represents a reduction in the time to first alleviation of symptoms from 7 to 6.3 days. There was no effect in asthmatic children, but in otherwise healthy children there was (reduction by a mean difference of 29 hours, 95% CI 12 to 47 hours, P = 0.001). Zanamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults by 0.60 days (95% CI 0.39 to 0.81 days, P < 0.00001), equating to a reduction in the mean duration of symptoms from 6.6 to 6.0 days. The effect in children was not significant. In subgroup analysis we found no evidence of a difference in treatment effect for zanamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults in the influenza-infected and non-influenza-infected subgroups (P = 0.53). Hospitalisations. Treatment of adults with oseltamivir had no significant effect on hospitalisations: risk difference (RD) 0.15% (95% CI -0.78 to 0.91). There was also no significant effect in children or in prophylaxis. Zanamivir hospitalisation data were unreported. Serious influenza complications or those leading to study withdrawal. In adult treatment trials, oseltamivir did not significantly reduce those complications classified as serious or those which led to study withdrawal (RD 0.07%, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.44), nor in child treatment trials; neither did zanamivir in the treatment of adults or in prophylaxis. There were insufficient events to compare this outcome for oseltamivir in prophylaxis or zanamivir in the treatment of children. Pneumonia. Oseltamivir significantly reduced self reported, investigator-mediated, unverified pneumonia (RD 1.00%, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.49); number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 100 (95% CI 67 to 451) in the treated population. The effect was not significant in the five trials that used a more detailed diagnostic form for pneumonia. There were no definitions of pneumonia (or other complications) in any trial. No oseltamivir treatment studies reported effects on radiologically confirmed pneumonia. There was no significant effect on unverified pneumonia in children. There was no significant effect of zanamivir on either self reported or radiologically confirmed pneumonia. In prophylaxis, zanamivir significantly reduced the risk of self reported, investigator-mediated, unverified pneumonia in adults (RD 0.32%, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.41); NNTB = 311 (95% CI 244 to 1086), but not oseltamivir. Bronchitis, sinusitis and otitis media. Zanamivir significantly reduced the risk of bronchitis in adult treatment trials (RD 1.80%, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.80); NNTB = 56 (36 to 155), but not oseltamivir. Neither NI significantly reduced the risk of otitis media and sinusitis in both adults and children. Harms of treatment. Oseltamivir in the treatment of adults increased the risk of nausea (RD 3.66%, 95% CI 0.90 to 7.39); number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) = 28 (95% CI 14 to 112) and vomiting (RD 4.56%, 95% CI 2.39 to 7.58); NNTH = 22 (14 to 42). The proportion of participants with four-fold increases in antibody titre was significantly lower in the treated group compared to the control group (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.97, I(2) statistic = 0%) (5% absolute difference between arms). Oseltamivir significantly decreased the risk of diarrhoea (RD 2.33%, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.81); NNTB = 43 (95% CI 27 to 709) and cardiac events (RD 0.68%, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.0); NNTB = 148 (101 to 2509) compared to placebo during the on-treatment period. There was a dose-response effect on psychiatric events in the two oseltamivir "pivotal" treatment trials, WV15670 and WV15671, at 150 mg (standard dose) and 300 mg daily (high dose) (P = 0.038). In the treatment of children, oseltamivir induced vomiting (RD 5.34%, 95% CI 1.75 to 10.29); NNTH = 19 (95% CI 10 to 57). There was a significantly lower proportion of children on oseltamivir with a four-fold increase in antibodies (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00, I(2) = 0%). Prophylaxis. In prophylaxis trials, oseltamivir and zanamivir reduced the risk of symptomatic influenza in individuals (oseltamivir: RD 3.05% (95% CI 1.83 to 3.88); NNTB = 33 (26 to 55); zanamivir: RD 1.98% (95% CI 0.98 to 2.54); NNTB = 51 (40 to 103)) and in households (oseltamivir: RD 13.6% (95% CI 9.52 to 15.47); NNTB = 7 (6 to 11); zanamivir: RD 14.84% (95% CI 12.18 to 16.55); NNTB = 7 (7 to 9)). There was no significant effect on asymptomatic influenza (oseltamivir: RR 1.14 (95% CI 0.39 to 3.33); zanamivir: RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.24)). Non-influenza, influenza-like illness could not be assessed due to data not being fully reported. In oseltamivir prophylaxis studies, psychiatric adverse events were increased in the combined on- and off-treatment periods (RD 1.06%, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.76); NNTH = 94 (95% CI 36 to 1538) in the study treatment population. Oseltamivir increased the risk of headaches whilst on treatment (RD 3.15%, 95% CI 0.88 to 5.78); NNTH = 32 (95% CI 18 to 115), renal events whilst on treatment (RD 0.67%, 95% CI -2.93 to 0.01); NNTH = 150 (NNTH 35 to NNTB > 1000) and nausea whilst on treatment (RD 4.15%, 95% CI 0.86 to 9.51); NNTH = 25 (95% CI 11 to 116).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oseltamivir and zanamivir have small, non-specific effects on reducing the time to alleviation of influenza symptoms in adults, but not in asthmatic children. Using either drug as prophylaxis reduces the risk of developing symptomatic influenza. Treatment trials with oseltamivir or zanamivir do not settle the question of whether the complications of influenza (such as pneumonia) are reduced, because of a lack of diagnostic definitions. The use of oseltamivir increases the risk of adverse effects, such as nausea, vomiting, psychiatric effects and renal events in adults and vomiting in children. The lower bioavailability may explain the lower toxicity of zanamivir compared to oseltamivir. The balance between benefits and harms should be considered when making decisions about use of both NIs for either the prophylaxis or treatment of influenza. The influenza virus-specific mechanism of action proposed by the producers does not fit the clinical evidence.

Zanamivir for influenza in adults and children: systematic review of clinical study reports and summary of regulatory comments

OBJECTIVES

To describe the potential benefits and harms of zanamivir.

DESIGN

Systematic review of clinical study reports of randomised placebo controlled trials and regulatory information

DATA SOURCES

Clinical study reports, trial registries, electronic databases, regulatory archives, and correspondence with manufacturers.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised placebo controlled trials in adults and children who had confirmed or suspected exposure to natural influenza.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Time to first alleviation of symptoms, influenza outcomes and complications, admissions to hospital, and adverse events in the intention to treat (ITT) population.

RESULTS

We included 28 trials in stage 1 (judgment of appropriate study design) and 26 in stage 2 (formal analysis). For treatment of adults, zanamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms of influenza-like illness by 0.60 days (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.81, P<0.001, I(2)=9%), which equates to an average 14.4 hours' reduction, or a 10% reduction in mean duration of symptoms from 6.6 days to 6.0 days. Time to first alleviation of symptoms was shorter in all participants when any relief drugs were allowed compared with no use. Zanamivir did not reduce the risk of self reported investigator mediated pneumonia (risk difference 0.17%, -0.73% to 0.70%) or radiologically confirmed pneumonia (-0.06%, -6.56% to 2.11%) in adults. The effect on pneumonia in children was also not significant (0.56%, -1.64% to 1.04%). There was no significant effect on otitis media or sinusitis in both adults and children, with only a small effect noted for bronchitis in adults (1.80%, 0.65% to 2.80%), but not in children. There were no data to assess effects on admissions in adults and children. Zanamivir tended to be well tolerated. In zanamivir prophylaxis studies, symptomatic influenza in individuals was significantly reduced (1.98%, (0.98% to 2.54%); reducing event rates from 3.26% to 1.27%, which means 51 people need to be treated to prevent one influenza case (95% confidence interval, 40 to 103). In contrast, the prophylaxis effect on asymptomatic influenza cases was not significant in individuals (risk difference 0.14%, -1.10% to 1.10%) or in households (1.32%, -2.20% to 3.84%). In households treated prophylactically there was an effect on symptomatic influenza (14.84%, 12.18% to 16.55%), but this was based on only two small studies including 824 participants. Prophylaxis in adults reduced unverified pneumonia (0.32%, 0.09% to 0.41%; NNTB (number needed to treat to benefit) 311, 244 to 1086) but had no effect on pneumonia in children or on bronchitis or sinusitis in adults or children (risk difference 0.32%, 0.09% to 0.41%; NNTB 311, 244 to 1086).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a full assessment of all trials conducted, zanamivir reduces the time to symptomatic improvement in adults (but not in children) with influenza-like illness by just over half a day, although this effect might be attenuated by symptom relief medication. Zanamivir also reduces the proportion of patients with laboratory confirmed symptomatic influenza. We found no evidence that zanamivir reduces the risk of complications of influenza, particularly pneumonia, or the risk of hospital admission or death. Its harmful effects were minor (except for bronchospasm), perhaps because of low bioavailability.

Therapeutics against influenza

Despite 75 years of research into prevention and treatment of influenza, the viruses that cause this disease continue to rank as some of the most important pathogens afflicting humans today. Progress in development of therapeutics for influenza has been slow for much of that time, but has accelerated in pace over the last two decades. Two classes of antiviral medications are used in humans at present, but each has limitations in scope and effectiveness of use. New strategies involving these licensed agents, including alternate forms of delivery and combination therapy with other drugs, are currently being explored. In addition, several novel antiviral compounds are in various clinical phases of development. Together with strategies designed to target the virus itself, new approaches to interrupt host–pathogen interactions or modulate detrimental aspects of the immune response have been proposed. Therapy for influenza will likely undergo substantial changes in the decades to come, evolving with our knowledge of pathogenesis as new approaches become viable and are validated clinically.

The value of neuraminidase inhibitors for the prevention and treatment of seasonal influenza: a systematic review of systematic reviews

Controversy has arisen regarding the effectiveness of neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs), especially against influenza-related complications. A literature search was performed to critically assess the evidence collected by the available systematic reviews (SRs) regarding the benefits and disadvantages of NIs (oseltamivir, zanamivir) compared to placebos in healthy and at-risk individuals of all ages for prophylaxis and treatment of seasonal influenza. A SR was done using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Health Technology Assessment Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Medline (January 2006-July 2012). Two reviewers selected SRs based on randomized clinical trials, which were restricted to intention-to-treat results, and they assessed review (AMSTAR) and study quality indicators (GRADE). The SRs included (N = 9) were of high quality. The efficacy of NIs in prophylaxis ranged from 64% (16-85) to 92% (37-99); the absolute risk reduction ranged from 1.2% to 12.1% (GRADE moderate to low). Clinically relevant treatment benefits of NIs were small in healthy adults and children suffering from influenza-like illness (GRADE high to moderate). Oseltamivir reduced antibiotic usage in healthy adults according to one SR, but this was not confirmed by other reviews (GRADE low). Zanamivir showed a preventive effect on antibiotic usage in children (95% (77-99);GRADE moderate) and on the occurrence of bronchitis in at-risk individuals (59% (30-76);GRADE moderate). No evidence was available on the treatment benefits of NIs in elderly and at-risk groups and their effects on hospitalization and mortality. In oseltamivir trials, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea were significant side-effects. For zanamivir trials, no adverse effects have been reported. The combination of diagnostic uncertainty, the risk for virus strain resistance, possible side effects and financial cost outweigh the small benefits of oseltamivir or zanamivir for the prophylaxis and treatment of healthy individuals. No relevant benefits of these NIs on complications in at-risk individuals have been established.

Oseltamivir and inhaled zanamivir as influenza prophylaxis in Thai health workers: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled safety trial over 16 weeks

OBJECTIVES

Long-term chemoprophylaxis using neuraminidase inhibitors may be needed during influenza epidemics but safety data are limited to several weeks. We sought to assess the tolerability of oseltamivir and zanamivir as primary prophylaxis over 16 weeks.

METHODS

We conducted a parallel group, double blind, 2 (active drug) :1 (placebo) randomized trial of oral oseltamivir/placebo or inhaled zanamivir/placebo over 16 weeks in healthy, Thai hospital professionals at two Bangkok hospitals. The primary endpoint was study withdrawal due to drug-related (possibly, probably, definitely) serious or adverse events (AEs) graded ≥ 2.

RESULTS

Recruited subjects numbered 129 oseltamivir/65 placebo and 131 zanamivir/65 placebo. A total of 102 grade ≥ 2 AEs were reported or detected in 69 subjects: 23/129 (17.8%) versus 15/65 (23.1%) (P=0.26), and 23/131 (17.6%) versus 8/65 (12.3%) (P=0.28). Intercurrent infections/fevers [26/102 (25.5%)], abnormal biochemistry [25/102 (24.5%)] and gastrointestinal symptoms [18/102 (17.6%)] were the most frequently reported AEs. There were no drug-related study withdrawals. Eight serious AEs were all due to intercurrent illnesses. Laboratory, lung function and ECG parameters were similar between drugs and placebos.

CONCLUSIONS

Oseltamivir and zanamivir were well tolerated in healthy hospital professionals. Both drugs can be recommended for primary influenza prophylaxis for up to 16 weeks.

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.

[Influenza : clinical symptoms, diagnostics and therapy]

Influenza infections have important socio-economic consequences. Risk groups identified so far include small children and elderly adults with comorbidities. In recent years in addition to seasonal influenza an outbreak of avian influenza occurred in 2005 and the new H1N1 pandemic occurred in 2009. For the latter other at risk groups were affected and a different clinical course has been documented. The focus of this article is to give an overview on the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, diagnosis and therapy of influenza infections.

Swine flu: lessons we need to learn from our global experience

There are important lessons to be learnt from the recent 'Swine Flu' pandemic. Before we call it a pandemic, we need to have appropriate trigger points that involve not only the spread of the virus but also its level of virulence. This was not done for H1N1 (swine flu). We need to ensure that we improve the techniques used in trying to decrease the spread of infection-both in the community and within our hospitals. This means improved infection control and hygiene, and the use of masks, alcohol hand rubs and so on. We also need to have a different approach to vaccines. Effective vaccines were produced only after the epidemic had passed and therefore had relatively little impact in preventing many infections. Mass population strategies involving vaccines and antivirals also misused large amounts of scarce medical resources.

Systematic review of influenza resistance to the neuraminidase inhibitors

Background

Antivirals play a critical role in the prevention and the management of influenza. One class of antivirals, neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs), is effective against all human influenza viruses. Currently there are two NAI drugs which are licensed worldwide: oseltamivir (Tamiflu^®) and zanamivir (Relenza^®); and two drugs which have received recent approval in Japan: peramivir and laninamivir. Until recently, the prevalence of antiviral resistance has been relatively low. However, almost all seasonal H1N1 strains that circulated in 2008-09 were resistant to oseltamivir whereas about 1% of tested 2009 pandemic H1N1 viruses were found to be resistant to oseltamivir. To date, no studies have demonstrated widespread resistance to zanamivir. It seems likely that the literature on antiviral resistance associated with oseltamivir as well as zanamivir is now sufficiently comprehensive to warrant a systematic review.

The primary objectives were to systematically review the literature to determine the incidence of resistance to oseltamivir, zanamivir, and peramivir in different population groups as well as assess the clinical consequences of antiviral resistance.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE without language restrictions in September 2010 to identify studies reporting incidence of resistance to oseltamivir, zanamivir, and peramivir. We used forest plots and meta-analysis of incidence of antiviral resistance associated with the three NAIs. Subgroup analyses were done across a number of population groups. Meta-analysis was also performed to evaluate associations between antiviral resistance and clinical complications and symptoms.

Results

We identified 19 studies reporting incidence of antiviral resistance. Meta-analysis of 15 studies yielded a pooled incidence rate for oseltamivir resistance of 2.6% (95%CI 0.7% to 5.5%). The incidence rate for all zanamivir resistance studies was 0%. Only one study measured incidence of antiviral resistance among subjects given peramivir and was reported to be 0%. Subgroup analyses detected higher incidence rates among influenza A patients, especially for H1N1 subtype influenza. Considerable heterogeneity between studies precluded definite inferences about subgroup results for immunocompromised patients, in-patients, and children. A meta-analysis of 4 studies reporting association between oseltamivir-resistance and pneumonia yielded a statistically significant risk ratio of 4.2 (95% CI 1.3 to 13.1, p = 0.02). Oseltamivir-resistance was not statistically significantly associated with other clinical complications and symptoms.

Conclusion

Our results demonstrate that that a substantial number of patients may become oseltamivir-resistant as a result of oseltamivir use, and that oseltamivir resistance may be significantly associated with pneumonia. In contrast, zanamivir resistance has been rarely reported to date.

Defective interfering virus protects elderly mice from influenza

Background

We have identified and characterised a defective-interfering (DI) influenza A virus particles containing a highly deleted segment 1 RNA that has broad-spectrum antiviral activity. In young adult mice it exerts protection against several different subtypes of influenza A virus (defined here as homologous or genetically compatible protection) and against a paramyxovirus and an influenza B virus (heterologous or genetically unrelated protection). Homologous protection is mediated by replication competition between the deleted and full-length genomes, and heterologous protection occurs through stimulation of innate immunity, especially interferon type I.

Methods

A single dose of the protective DI virus was administered intranasally to elderly mice at -7, -1 and +1 days relative to intranasal challenge with influenza A virus.

Results

A single dose of the DI virus given 1 or 7 days protected elderly mice, reducing a severe, sometimes fatal disease to a subclinical or mild infection. In contrast, all members of control groups treated with inactivated DI virus before challenge became extremely ill and most died. Despite the subclinical/mild nature of their infection, protected mice developed solid immunity to a second infectious challenge.

Conclusions

The defective interfering virus is effective in preventing severe influenza A in elderly mice and may offer a new approach to protection of the human population.

A systematic review of clinical decision rules for the diagnosis of influenza

PURPOSE

In this study, we assessed whether multivariate models and clinical decision rules can be used to reliably diagnose influenza.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE, bibliographies of relevant studies, and previous meta-analyses. We searched the literature (1962-2010) for articles evaluating the accuracy of multivariate models, clinical decision rules, or simple heuristics for the diagnosis of influenza. Each author independently reviewed and abstracted data from each article; discrepancies were resolved by consensus discussion. Where possible, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, likelihood ratios, and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies met our inclusion criteria. No study prospectively validated a multivariate model or clinical decision rule, and no study performed a split-sample or bootstrap validation of such a model. Simple heuristics such as the so-called fever and cough rule and the fever, cough, and acute onset rule were each evaluated by several studies in populations of adults and children. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.70 and 0.79, respectively. We could not calculate a single summary estimate, however, as the diagnostic threshold varied among studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The fever and cough, and the fever, cough, and acute onset heuristics have modest accuracy, but summary estimates could not be calculated. Further research is needed to develop and prospectively validate clinical decision rules to identify patients requiring testing, empiric treatment, or neither.