A change in the effectiveness of amantadine for the treatment of influenza over the 2003-2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006 influenza seasons in Japan

Influenza virus resistance to antiviral therapy

Antiviral drugs for influenza therapy and prophylaxis are either of the adamantane or neuraminidase inhibitor (NAI) class. However, the NAIs are mainly prescribed nowadays, because of widespread adamantane resistance among influenza A viruses and ineffectiveness of adamantanes against influenza B. Emergence and spread of NAI resistance would further limit our therapeutic options. Taking into account the previous spread of oseltamivir-resistant viruses during the 2007/2008 season preceding the last pandemic, emergence of yet another naturally NAI-resistant influenza virus may not be an unlikely event. This previous incident also underlines the importance of resistance surveillance and asks for a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying primary resistance development. We provide an overview of the major influenza antiviral resistance mechanisms and future therapies for influenza. Here, we call for a better understanding of the effect of virus mutations upon antiviral treatment and for a tailored antiviral approach to severe influenza virus infections.

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.

A randomized, controlled trial comparing traditional herbal medicine and neuraminidase inhibitors in the treatment of seasonal influenza

The herbal medicine, maoto, has been traditionally prescribed to patients with influenza in Japan. To better understand the efficacy of maoto for the treatment of influenza, a randomized trial was conducted for comparison with oseltamivir or zanamivir. Adult patients with influenza symptoms, including fever, positive for quick diagnostic kit for influenza within 48 h of fever onset were assessed for enrollment. The data of 28 patients randomly assigned to maoto (n = 10), oseltamivir (n = 8), or zanamivir (n = 10) were analyzed for the duration of fever (>37.5°C) and total symptom score from symptom cards recorded by the patient. Viral isolation and serum cytokine measurements were also done on days 1, 3, and 5. Maoto granules, a commercial medical dosage form, are made from four plants: Ephedra Herb, Apricot Kernel, Cinnamon Bark, and Glycyrrhiza Root. Median durations of fever of patients assigned maoto, oseltamivir, or zanamivir were 29, 46, or 27 h, respectively, significantly different for maoto and oseltamivir. No significant between-group differences were found in total symptom score among three groups. Viral persistent rates and serum cytokine levels (IFN-α, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, and TNF-α) during the study period showed no differences among three groups. The administration of oral maoto granules to healthy adults with seasonal influenza was well tolerated and associated with equivalent clinical and virological efficacy to neuraminidase inhibitors.

Comparison of the efficacies of amantadine treatment of swine-origin influenza virus A H1N1 and seasonal influenza H1N1 and H3N2 in Japan (2008-2009)

Amantadine is not thought to be effective for the treatment of swine-origin influenza virus (S-OIV) based on an analysis of genetic sequences of the M2 protein. However, the actual clinical efficacy of amantadine has not been well documented. Here, we were able to compare the efficacies of amantadine and neuraminidase inhibitors. Subjects consisted of 428 patients, including 144 with seasonal influenza (flu) identified between 2008 and 2009, and 284 with S-OIV identified between July 1 and November 30, 2009. Diagnosis of flu was established using a rapid diagnostic kit obtained commercially in Japan. Body temperature sheets were obtained from 95% of the S-OIV patients. Times required to recover normal body temperature were compared among subjects using different antiviral drugs. Genetic abnormalities in the M2 protein were also investigated in 66 randomly selected subjects from within the patient pool. Overall, the average hours required to recover normal body temperature in S-OIV patients treated with amantadine (160 cases), with oseltamivir (59 cases), or with zanamivir (65 cases) were 33.9 ± 20.7, 31.7 ± 16.0, or 36.3 ± 21.6, respectively. These differences were not statistically significant. The N31S abnormality was found in all 14 samples taken from the H3N2 patients and in all of the 23 samples taken from in S-OIV patients. However, this abnormality was not found in any of the 30 samples taken from seasonal H1N1 patients. Amantadine was found to be equally effective in treating S-OIV patients as neuraminidase inhibitors. The genetic abnormality resulting in S31N amino acid conversion identified in some of the H3N2 and S-OIV patients is thought to alter the function of M2 protein only mildly.

Swine Influenza (H1N1) pneumonia: clinical considerations

Influenza is a viral zoonosis of birds and mammals that has probably existed since antiquity. Attack rates of influenza are relatively high but mortality is relatively low. Influenza mortality is highest in the very young, the very old, and the immunosuppressed. Influenza has the potential for rapid spread and may involve large populations. This article examines the swine influenza (H1N1) strain of recent origin, and compares the microbiology, epidemiology, clinical presentation, differential, clinical, and laboratory diagnosis, therapy, complications, and prognosis with previous recorded outbreaks of avian and human seasonal influenza pneumonias.

Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in healthy adults

BACKGROUND

Neuraminidase inhibitors (NI) are recommended for use against influenza and its complications in inter-pandemic years and during pandemics.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of NIs in preventing and treating influenza, its transmission, and its complications in otherwise healthy adults, and to estimate the frequency of adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 3) which contains the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1950 to August 2009) and EMBASE (1980 to August 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised placebo-controlled trials of NIs in healthy adults exposed to naturally occurring influenza.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently applied inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We structured the comparisons into prophylaxis, treatment, and adverse events, with further subdivision by outcome and dose.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four prophylaxis, 12 treatment and four post-exposure prophylaxis trials. In prophylaxis compared to placebo, NIs had no effect against influenza-like illnesses (ILI) (risk ratio (RR) ranging from 1.28 for oral oseltamivir 75 mg daily to 0.76 for inhaled zanamivir 10 mg daily). The efficacy of oral oseltamivir against symptomatic influenza was 76% (at 75 mg daily), and 73% (at 150 mg daily). Inhaled zanamivir 10 mg daily performed similarly. Neither NI had a significant effect on asymptomatic influenza. Oseltamivir induced nausea (odds ratio (OR) 1.79, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.93). Oseltamivir for post-exposure prophylaxis had an efficacy of 58% and 84% in two trials for households. Zanamivir performed similarly. The hazard ratios for time to alleviation of symptoms were in favour of the treated group 1.20 (1.06 to 1.35) for oseltamivir and 1.24 (1.13 to 1.36) for zanamivir. Because of the exclusion of a review of mainly unpublished trials of oseltamivir, insufficient evidence remained to reach a conclusion on the prevention of complications requiring antibiotics in influenza cases (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.37). Analysis of the US FDA and Japan's PMDA regulators' pharmacovigilance dataset, revealed incomplete reporting and description of harms preventing us from reaching firm conclusions on the central nervous system toxicity of neuraminidase inhibitors.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Numerous inconsistencies detected in the available evidence, followed by an inability to adequately access the data, has undermined confidence in our previous conclusions for oseltamivir. Independent RCTs to resolve these uncertainties are needed.

Antiviral Resistance in Influenza Viruses: Clinical and Epidemiological Aspects

Two classes of anti-viral agents, the M2 ion channel inhibitors (amantadine, rimantadine) and neuraminidase (NA) inhibitors (oseltamivir, zanamivir) are available for treatment and prevention of infl uenza in most countries of the world. The principle concerns about emergence of antiviral resistance in infl uenza viruses are loss of drug effi cacy, transmission of resistant variants, and possible increased virulence or transmissibility of resistant variants (1). Because seasonal infl uenza is usually an acute, self-limited illness in which viral clearance occurs rapidly due to innate and adaptive host immune responses, the emergence of drug-resistant variants would be anticipated to have modest effects on clinical recovery, except perhaps in immunocompromised or immunologically naïve hosts, such as young infants or during the appearance of a novel strain. In contrast to the limited impact of resistance emergence in the treated immunocompetent individual, the epidemiologic impact of resistance emergence and transmission could be considerable, including loss of both prophylactic and therapeutic activity for a particular drug, at the household, community, or perhaps global level. Infl uenza epidemiology in temperate climates is expected to provide some protection against widespread circulation of resistant variants, as viruses do not persist between epidemics but rather are re-introduced each season and new variants appear often (2, 3).

Differential patterns of amantadine-resistance in influenza A (H3N2) and (H1N1) isolates in Toronto, Canada

BACKGROUND

Molecular methods were used to characterize influenza A (H1N1) and (H3N2) strains and to identify amantadine-resistance.

OBJECTIVES

To compare proportions of amantadine-resistant influenza A (H1N1) and (H3N2) isolates in the Greater Toronto Area.

STUDY DESIGN

Isolates of influenza A (H1N1) and (H3N2) were strain typed using molecular methods. Pyrosequencing for point mutations in the transmembrane domain of the M2 proton channel was undertaken. Proportions of amantadine-resistant and susceptible isolates were compared using the The Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

96% of the 49 influenza A (H3N2) isolates and none of the influenza A (H1N1) tested carried a point mutation in the M gene coding for the M2 protein. Influenza A (H3N2) isolates were more likely to carry an amantadine-resistance associated mutation than influenza A (H1N1) isolates (Fishers's exact test, P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

: Characterization of amantadine-resistance in influenza A (H1N1) isolates should utilize a variety of different methods including sub-typing, strain typing, and direct sequencing for point mutations associated with amantadine-resistance.

Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in healthy adults

BACKGROUND

Neuraminidase inhibitors (NI) are recommended for use against influenza and its complications in interpandemic years and in a pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of NIs in preventing or ameliorating influenza, its transmission and its complications in healthy adults and to estimate the frequency of adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (2004 to September, Week 4 2005), EMBASE (2003 to June 2005) and contacted manufacturers, researchers in the field, and authors of studies evaluated in the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised placebo-controlled studies of NIs in healthy adults exposed to naturally occurring influenza.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors applied inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We structured the comparisons into prophylaxis, treatment and adverse events with further subdivision by outcome and dose.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four prophylaxis, 13 treatment and four post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) trials. In prophylaxis compared to placebo, NIs have no effect against influenza-like illnesses (ILI) (relative risk (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 3.66 for oral oseltamivir 75 mg daily; RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.95 for inhaled zanamivir 10 mg daily). The efficacy of oral oseltamivir 75 mg daily against symptomatic influenza is 61% (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85), or 73% (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.67) at 150 mg daily. Inhaled zanamivir 10 mg daily is 62% efficacious (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.85). Neither NI has a significant effect on asymptomatic influenza. Oseltamivir induces nausea (odds ratio (OR) 1.79, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.93). Oseltamivir for PEP has an efficacy of 58.5% (15.6% to 79.6) for households and of 68% (34.9 to 84.2%) to 89% in contacts of index cases. Zanamivir has similar performance. The hazard ratios for time to alleviation of influenza symptoms were in favour of the treated group 1.33 (1.29 to 1.37) for zanamivir and 1.30 (1.13 to 1.50) for oseltamivir. Viral nasal titres were significantly diminished by both NIs. Oseltamivir 150 mg daily prevented lower respiratory tract complications (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.57). We could find no comparative data on the effects of oseltamivir on avian influenza.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Because of their low effectiveness, NIs should not be used in routine seasonal influenza control. In a serious epidemic or pandemic, NIs should be used with other public health measures. We are unsure of the generalisability of our conclusions from seasonal to pandemic or avian influenza.