Laninamivir octanoate for post-exposure prophylaxis of influenza in household contacts: a randomized double blind placebo controlled trial

Prophylactic effect of ensitrelvir in mice infected with SARS-CoV-2

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the etiological cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and continues to be a major health concern worldwide. Strategies to protect individuals at high risk of COVID-19 are critical but are currently a largely unmet need. We evaluated the oral antiviral drug ensitrelvir, which specifically targets the SARS-CoV-2 3CL protease, for its efficacy as a pre-exposure prophylactic treatment. Aged BALB/c mice were subcutaneously treated with various doses of ensitrelvir 24 h prior to a lethal SARS-CoV-2 challenge infection. Mouse body weight changes, survival rates, and viral titers in the lungs were evaluated, and plasma concentrations of ensitrelvir were determined. A single subcutaneous administration of ensitrelvir at 64 mg/kg or greater 24 h prior to SARS-CoV-2 challenge infection significantly protected aged mice against lethality and inhibited body weight loss. Pharmacokinetic analysis of ensitrelvir in the aged mice suggested that plasma concentrations ≥2.99 μg/mL resulted in a significant prophylactic effect against SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the aged mouse prophylaxis model, SARS-CoV-2 titers were suppressed in the lungs of mice treated with ensitrelvir 24 h prior to challenge infection, suggesting that the prophylactic administration of ensitrelvir exerted its prophylactic effect by suppressing viral proliferation. These findings suggest that ensitrelvir is a candidate drug for pre-exposure prophylactic treatment of individuals at high risk of COVID-19.

Prophylactic Treatment with Baloxavir Protects Mice from Lethal Infection with Influenza A and B Viruses

Influenza remains a worldwide health concern. Antiviral drugs are considered as one of the useful options for its prevention as a complementary measure to vaccination. Baloxavir acid selectively inhibits the cap-dependent endonuclease of influenza viruses and exhibits marked viral titre reduction in patients. Here, we describe the prophylactic potency of baloxavir acid against lethal infection with influenza A and B viruses in mice. BALB/c mice were subcutaneously administered once with baloxavir acid suspension, or orally administered once daily for 10 days with oseltamivir phosphate solution at human relevant doses. Next, the mice were intranasally inoculated with A/PR/8/34 (H1N1) or B/Hong Kong/5/72 strain at 24 to 96 h after the initial dosing. Prophylactic treatment with the antiviral drugs significantly reduced the lung viral titres and prolonged survival time. In particular, baloxavir acid showed a greater suppressive effect on lung viral titres compared to oseltamivir phosphate. In this model, baloxavir acid maintained significant prophylactic effects against influenza A and B virus infections when the plasma concentration at the time of infection was at least 0.88 and 3.58 ng/mL, respectively. The significant prophylactic efficacy observed in our mouse model suggests the potential utility of baloxavir marboxil for prophylaxis against influenza in humans.

Treatment and prevention of influenza in geriatric patients

INTRODUCTION

Older adults are the most vulnerable population to the effects of influenza. These patients have age-related characteristics that make response to both infection and therapeutics different than younger patients.

AREAS COVERED

Influenza vaccination and antiviral therapy are the foundational approaches to preventing and treating influenza in geriatric patients. Older adults should receive one of the three enhanced vaccines before influenza season beings. There are five antivirals used in influenza. Geriatric patients have been under-enrolled in antiviral studies but have been included in small numbers. Oseltamivir has the most abundant evidence, including in the hospital and long-term care (LTC) facilities, and the strongest evidence for reducing mortality and complications. Peramivir offers the shortest time for symptom alleviation, while baloxavir is best tolerated.

EXPERT OPINION

Oseltamivir has the most versatility in preventing and treating influenza in geriatric patients. Parenteral peramivir and zanamivir are second-line alternatives for complicated influenza when oseltamivir cannot be used. Single-dose peramivir and baloxavir are attractive alternatives to oseltamivir in uncomplicated influenza but will not increase in utilization until more evidence is available regarding mortality and complications, particularly in hospitalized and LTC patients. More studies, including comparative trials, are required to elucidate the role in therapy for each therapeutic in the geriatric population.

A Review of the Ring Trial Design for Evaluating Ring Interventions for Infectious Diseases

In trials of infectious disease interventions, rare outcomes and unpredictable spatiotemporal variation can introduce bias, reduce statistical power, and prevent conclusive inferences. Spillover effects can complicate inference if individual randomization is used to gain efficiency. Ring trials are a type of cluster-randomized trial that may increase efficiency and minimize bias, particularly in emergency and elimination settings with strong clustering of infection. They can be used to evaluate ring interventions, which are delivered to individuals in proximity to or contact with index cases. We conducted a systematic review of ring trials, compare them with other trial designs for evaluating ring interventions, and describe strengths and weaknesses of each design. Of 849 articles and 322 protocols screened, we identified 26 ring trials, 15 cluster-randomized trials, 5 trials that randomized households or individuals within rings, and 1 individually randomized trial. The most common interventions were postexposure prophylaxis (n = 23) and focal mass drug administration and screening and treatment (n = 7). Ring trials require robust surveillance systems and contact tracing for directly transmitted diseases. For rare diseases with strong spatiotemporal clustering, they may have higher efficiency and internal validity than cluster-randomized designs, in part because they ensure that no clusters are excluded from analysis due to zero cluster incidence. Though more research is needed to compare them with other types of trials, ring trials hold promise as a design that can increase trial speed and efficiency while reducing bias.

Antiviral Treatments for Influenza

Influenza is an acute respiratory illness caused by the influenza A, B, and C viruses. It can occur in local outbreaks or seasonal epidemics, with possibility to spread worldwide in a pandemic when a novel strain with significant antigenic differences emerges. During the past years, several new drugs have become available, with different accessibility related to specific countries' approval. We have conducted a review of literature, analyzing the most recent data on efficacy and safety of drugs currently available to treat influenza, with a particular attention toward special populations. Efficacy and safety profile of neuraminidase inhibitors (oseltamivir, zanamivir, laninamivir, peramivir) and recently approved cap-dependent endonuclease inhibitor baloxavir marboxil are reported in literature, but still little information is available about special populations such as critically ill patients and patients with a history of chronic respiratory disease. Moreover, the emergence of strains with reduced or no susceptibility to current drugs is a matter of concern, suggesting the need of constant monitoring of viral variants.

Household transmission of influenza A and B within a prospective cohort during the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 seasons

People living within the same household as someone ill with influenza are at increased risk of infection. Here, we use Markov chain Monte Carlo methods to partition the hazard of influenza illness within a cohort into the hazard from the community and the hazard from the household. During the 2013‐2014 influenza season, 49 (4.7%) of the 1044 people enrolled in a community surveillance cohort had an acute respiratory illness (ARI) attributable to influenza. During the 2014‐2015 influenza season, 50 (4.7%) of the 1063 people in the cohort had an ARI attributable to influenza. The secondary attack rate from a household member was 2.3% for influenza A (H1) during 2013‐2014, 5.3% for influenza B during 2013‐2014, and 7.6% for influenza A (H3) during 2014‐2015. Living in a household with a person ill with influenza increased the risk of an ARI attributable to influenza up to 350%, depending on the season and the influenza virus circulating within the household.

The safety and efficacy of the long-acting neuraminidase inhibitor laninamivir octanoate hydrate for Inhalation Suspension Set in children under the age of 5 in a post-marketing surveillance

INTRODUCTION

We conducted a post-marketing surveillance of laninamivir octanoate hydrate for Inhalation Suspension Set in patients under the age of 5 infected with the influenza virus to evaluate safety and efficacy of the drug.

METHODS

Subjects enrolled by the centralized enrollment system were administered laninamivir once using a nebulizer based on the package insert.

RESULTS

Safety was evaluated in 1104 patients. The incidence of ADRs was 1.00% (11/1104). Compared to the incidence of ADRs of 2.04% (9/441) in the clinical trials for development, no increase in the frequency of ADRs was noted. Serious ADRs were noted in 3 patients (5 cases): 2 cases of convulsive attack, each 1 case of muscular weakness, a depressed level of consciousness, and pain in extremities. Excluding 2 patients with unknown outcomes, all of the patients recovered or their symptoms were alleviated. To detect risk factors for the occurrence of ADRs, 16 attributes were examined, and none of them were found to be significant. Efficacy was evaluated in 881 patients. The median time (95% CI) to fever resolution was 37.0 (33.0-39.0) h in type A virus (785 patients), 45.0 (34.0-56.0) h in type B virus (95 patients), and 22.0 h (1 patient) in the mixed type. This was similar to the time to fever resolution in the clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

The results of this surveillance verified that there are no noticeable problems with the safety or efficacy of laninamivir for children under the age of 5 infected with the influenza A and B viruses.

Assessment of Adherence to Post-exposure Prophylaxis with Oseltamivir in Healthcare Workers: A Retrospective Questionnaire-Based Study

Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for healthcare workers is one of the effective strategies for preventing nosocomial outbreaks of influenza. However, PEP adherence in healthcare workers is rarely analysed, and no strategies have been established to improve adherence to PEP for healthcare workers. We aimed to retrospectively analyse adherence to PEP and the factors associated with non-adherence in healthcare workers. A survey of 221 healthcare workers who were eligible for PEP at Tokushima University Hospital in the 2016/2017 season was conducted. Once-daily oseltamivir (75 mg for 10 d) was used as the PEP regimen. Of the 221 healthcare workers, 175 received PEP and were surveyed for adherence using a questionnaire. Of the 130 healthcare workers who responded to the questionnaire, 121 (93.1%) had been vaccinated. In this survey, 82 healthcare workers (63.1%) did not fully complete PEP. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that physicians (odds ratio: 4.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.08-10.25) and non-vaccination (odds ratio: 9.60, 95% CI: 1.12-82.25) were the factors for non-adherence to PEP. Of the 47 healthcare workers who responded to the item regarding reasons for non-adherence, 36 (76.6%) reported forgetting to take oseltamivir or discontinuing it due to a misguided self-decision that continuation of PEP was unnecessary, and 5 (10.6%) reported discontinuing treatment due to adverse effects. In conclusion, healthcare workers, particularly physicians, had low PEP adherence owing to forgetting or stopping to take oseltamivir due to a misguided self-decision. To obtain the maximum preventive effect of PEP, medication education should be provided to endorse PEP compliance.

Healthcare Resource Use and Burden Associated with Influenza Transmission Among Household Members with a Primary Infection: Commercial Claims Data Analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the burden of influenza transmission and care-seeking patterns over 3 influenza seasons among commercially insured households with a primary influenza infection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used commercial claims data from the US MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 influenza seasons. Patients with a billed diagnosis of influenza and with coverage for at least 1 household member under the same health plan policy were included. A secondary diagnosed case was defined as a diagnosis of influenza in a second household member occurring within 14 days of the index case in a household.

RESULTS

Among 1,224,808 households with ≥2 members and a primary case of influenza, a secondary case of influenza was reported in 119,883 households (9.8%). A secondary diagnosed case of influenza occurred within 4 days of the primary diagnosis in 93,883 (78.3%) of those households. Both primary and secondary diagnosed influenza cases occurred most often among children (~60%). Household size was positively correlated to both the risk of a second case (6.4% of households with 2 or 3 members versus 12.6% of households with ≥4 members, P < 0.001) and the time to diagnosis of a second case (Spearman rank correlation coefficient = 0.09; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Claims data for 3 influenza seasons (2014, 2015, 2016) showed that intrahousehold transmission of influenza occurs in approximately 10% of households with a primary case and poses a higher burden on larger households. Intrahousehold transmission of influenza represents a large healthcare resource use burden, with an unmet need for interventions that limit transmission.

Influenza Therapeutics in Clinical Practice-Challenges and Recent Advances

In the last few years, several new direct-acting influenza antivirals have been licensed, and others have advanced in clinical development. The increasing diversity of antiviral classes should allow an adequate public health response should a resistant virus to one agent or class widely circulate. One new antiviral, baloxavir marboxil, has been approved in the United States for treatment of influenza in those at high risk of developing influenza-related complications. Except for intravenous zanamivir in European Union countries, no antivirals have been licensed specifically for the indication of severe influenza or hospitalized influenza. This review addresses recent clinical developments involving selected polymerase inhibitors, neuraminidase inhibitors, antibody-based therapeutics, and host-directed therapies. There are many knowledge gaps for most of these agents because some data are not published and multiple pivotal studies are in progress at present. This review also considers important clinical research issues, including regulatory pathways, study designs, endpoints, and target populations encountered during the clinical development of novel therapeutics.

Understanding the Impact of Resistance to Influenza Antivirals

Influenza poses a significant burden on society and health care systems. Although antivirals are an integral tool in effective influenza management, the potential for the emergence of antiviral-resistant viruses can lead to uncertainty and hesitation among front-line prescribers and policy makers. Here, we provide an overview of influenza antiviral resistance in context, exploring the key concepts underlying its development and clinical impact. Due to the acute nature of influenza in immunocompetent patients, resistant viruses that develop during antiviral treatment of a single patient ("treatment-emergent resistance") are usually cleared in a relatively short time, with no impact on future antiviral efficacy. In addition, although available data are limited by small numbers of patients, they show that antiviral treatment still provides clinical benefit to the patient within whom resistance emerges. In contrast, the sustained community transmission of resistant variants in the absence of treatment ("acquired resistance") is of greater concern and can potentially render front-line antivirals ineffective. Importantly, however, resistant viruses are usually associated with reduced fitness such that their widespread transmission is relatively rare. Influenza antivirals are an essential part of effective influenza management due to their ability to reduce the risk of complications and death in infected patients. Although antiviral resistance should be taken seriously and requires continuous careful monitoring, it is not comparable to antibiotic resistance in bacteria, which can become permanent and widespread, with far-reaching medical consequences. The benefits of antiviral treatment far outweigh concerns of potential resistance, which in the vast majority of cases does not have a significant clinical impact.

Baloxavir Marboxil for Prophylaxis against Influenza in Household Contacts

BACKGROUND

Baloxavir marboxil (baloxavir) is a polymerase acidic protein (PA) endonuclease inhibitor with clinical efficacy in the treatment of uncomplicated influenza, including in outpatients at increased risk for complications. The postexposure prophylactic efficacy of baloxavir in the household setting is unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the postexposure prophylactic efficacy of baloxavir in household contacts of index patients with confirmed influenza during the 2018-2019 season in Japan. The participants were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either a single dose of baloxavir or placebo. The primary end point was clinical influenza, as confirmed by reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction testing, over a period of 10 days. The occurrence of baloxavir-selected PA substitutions associated with reduced susceptibility was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 752 household contacts of 545 index patients were randomly assigned to receive baloxavir or placebo. Among the index patients, 95.6% had influenza A virus infection, 73.6% were younger than 12 years of age, and 52.7% received baloxavir. Among the participants who could be evaluated (374 in the baloxavir group and 375 in the placebo group), the percentage in whom clinical influenza developed was significantly lower in the baloxavir group than in the placebo group (1.9% vs. 13.6%) (adjusted risk ratio, 0.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06 to 0.30; P<0.001). Baloxavir was effective in high-risk, pediatric, and unvaccinated subgroups of participants. The risk of influenza infection, regardless of symptoms, was lower with baloxavir than with placebo (adjusted risk ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.58). The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups (22.2% in the baloxavir group and 20.5% in the placebo group). In the baloxavir group, the viral PA substitutions I38T/M or E23K were detected in 10 (2.7%) and 5 (1.3%) participants, respectively. No transmission of these variants from baloxavir-treated index patients to participants in the placebo group was detected; however, several instances of transmission to participants in the baloxavir group could not be ruled out.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-dose baloxavir showed significant postexposure prophylactic efficacy in preventing influenza in household contacts of patients with influenza. (Funded by Shionogi; Japan Primary Registries Network number, JapicCTI-184180.).

Drug-induced pneumonitis following the administration of laninamivir octanoate: The first two reported cases

Laninamivir, a neuraminidase inhibitor (NAI), has been used for the treatment and prophylaxis of influenza A/B. To date, pneumonia has not been reported as an adverse effect of NAIs. Here, we report the first 2 cases of drug-induced pneumonitis after the administration of laninamivir octanoate (LO), a pro-drug of laninamivir. Case 1 reports a 20-year-old healthy woman presenting with LO-induced pneumonitis so severe that it was necessary for endotracheal intubation and administration of mechanical ventilator support. Steroids were used for the treatment of pneumonitis and rapid improvement was observed. Case 2 reports a 35-year-old healthy woman presenting with less severe LO-induced pneumonitis that improved without any treatment. In both cases, drug-induced lymphocyte stimulation tests (DLSTs) were positive. In the bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid, the proportion of eosinophils to lymphocytes was higher in Case 1. Conversely, the proportion of lymphocytes to eosinophils was higher in Case 2. Collectively, we determined 3 clinical issues: (1) LO could cause pneumonia; (2) BAL and DLST could be helpful in the diagnosis of LO-induced pneumonitis; and (3) LO-induced pneumonia could become severe, though steroids were effective in improving it.

Efficacy of laninamivir octanoate in mice with advanced inflammation stage caused by infection of highly lethal influenza virus

Four neuraminidase (NA) inhibitors and an RNA synthesis inhibitor were recently approved and are currently in clinical use for influenza. Among NA inhibitors, oseltamivir phosphate (OSE, Tamiflu^®) and zanamivir are approved worldwide, whereas peramivir and laninamivir octanoate (LAN, Inavir^®) are regionally approved for human use. Therefore, OSE has been used to treat infections of highly pathogenic influenza viruses, such as H5N1 and H7N9, which caused epidemic in southeast Asia and Egypt, and China, respectively. Generally, OSE is administered twice daily for 5 days by oral administration, and LAN once by inhalation for completing influenza therapy. In this study, we compared the efficacy of OSE and LAN administered according to the regimens in mice infected with highly lethal influenza viruses. The drugs were administered at the early and late stages of infection, which correspond to mild and severe inflammation in the lungs, respectively. Based on the drugs' regimens for human, a single administration of LAN at both stages of inflammation showed superior efficacy to repeated administration of OSE. LAN, as in OSE, could also be efficacious in treating severe influenza in humans.

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.

Verdinexor Targeting of CRM1 is a Promising Therapeutic Approach against RSV and Influenza Viruses

Two primary causes of respiratory tract infections are respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza viruses, both of which remain major public health concerns. There are a limited number of antiviral drugs available for the treatment of RSV and influenza, each having limited effectiveness and each driving selective pressure for the emergence of drug-resistant viruses. Novel broad-spectrum antivirals are needed to circumvent problems with current disease intervention strategies, while improving the cytokine-induced immunopathology associated with RSV and influenza infections. In this review, we examine the use of Verdinexor (KPT-335, a novel orally bioavailable drug that functions as a selective inhibitor of nuclear export, SINE), as an antiviral with multifaceted therapeutic potential. KPT-335 works to (1) block CRM1 (i.e., Chromosome Region Maintenance 1; exportin 1 or XPO1) mediated export of viral proteins critical for RSV and influenza pathogenesis; and (2) repress nuclear factor κB (NF-κB) activation, thus reducing cytokine production and eliminating virus-associated immunopathology. The repurposing of SINE compounds as antivirals shows promise not only against RSV and influenza virus but also against other viruses that exploit the nucleus as part of their viral life cycle.

A meta-analysis of laninamivir octanoate for treatment and prophylaxis of influenza

BACKGROUND

Laninamivir octanoate is a recently developed inhaled neuraminidase inhibitor for treating influenza virus infection. We performed meta-analyses to clarify the efficacy of laninamivir octanoate on influenza treatment and prevention.

METHODS

MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched to identify eligible studies. The log median time to event ratios (logMRs) and log odds ratios (logORs) were combined with meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Nine studies in treatment settings and three studies in prophylaxis settings were eligible for this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between laninamivir octanoate and oseltamivir (8 studies, logMR 0.04, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.14]; P=0.36) or zanamivir (4 studies, logMR -0.01, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.11]; P=0.93) in alleviating fever. However, laninamivir octanoate was associated with significantly longer fever duration in treating H3N2 influenza as compared to oseltamivir (4 studies, logMR 0.29, 95% CI [0.00, 0.59]; P=0.047). Laninamivir octanoate was associated with significantly longer duration of fever as compared to peramivir (4 studies, logMR 0.46, 95% CI [0.14, 0.77]; P=0.004). Laninamivir octanoate significantly reduced the incidence of clinical influenza in post-exposure settings (3 studies, logOR -1.17, 95% CI [-1.72, -0.62]; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the efficacy of laninamivir octanoate in treating influenza was comparable to that of oseltamivir or zanamivir, but it should be noted that laninamivir octanoate was associated with significantly longer fever duration in treating influenza H3N2 as compared to oseltamivir and oseltamivir-resistant mutations in seasonal influenza H1N1 might have affected the results. Peramivir may be superior to laninamivir in treating influenza. Laninamivir octanoate is effective in preventing influenza in post-exposure settings as compared to placebo.

Antiviral Treatments

Most viral respiratory tract infections are caused by classic respiratory viruses, including influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, human metapneumovirus, parainfluenza, rhinovirus, and adenovirus, whereas other viruses, such as herpes simplex, cytomegalovirus, and measles virus, can opportunistically affect the respiratory tract. The M2 inhibitors, amantadine and rimantadine, were historically effective for the prevention and treatment of influenza A but all circulating strains are currently resistant to these drugs. Neuraminidase inhibitors are the sole approved class of antivirals to treat influenza. Ribavirin, especially when combined with intravenous antibody, reduces morbidity and mortality among immunosuppressed patients.

Inhaled Laninamivir Octanoate as Prophylaxis for Influenza in Children

BACKGROUND

A single 20-mg dose of inhaled laninamivir octanoate is an effective treatment of influenza. However, the efficacy of laninamivir octanoate for the prevention of influenza in children <10 years of age has not yet been established.

METHODS

We conducted a double-blind, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled study to determine whether the efficacy of a single 20-mg dose of inhaled laninamivir octanoate to prevent the development of influenza was superior to that of placebo as prophylaxis for influenza in pediatric (<10 years) household members of index cases. Eligible subjects without influenza, in contact with an influenza-infected index case living in the same household, were blindly randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive 20 mg of laninamivir octanoate or placebo. The primary end point was the proportion of subjects who developed clinical influenza during a 10-day period.

RESULTS

A total of 343 subjects were randomly assigned, with 341 subjects included in the full analysis set for the primary analysis. The proportions of subjects who developed clinical influenza were 11% (18/171) in the laninamivir octanoate group and 19% (33/170) in the placebo group (P = .02). The relative risk reduction was 45.8% (95% confidence interval, 7.5% to 68.2%). The incidence of adverse events was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A single 20-mg dose of inhaled laninamivir octanoate was effective and well tolerated as prophylaxis for influenza.

Long-acting Neuraminidase Inhibitor Laninamivir Octanoate as Post-exposure Prophylaxis for Influenza

BACKGROUND

A single administration of laninamivir octanoate, a long-acting neuraminidase inhibitor, has been proven to be effective in the treatment of influenza but not for post-exposure prophylaxis.

METHODS

We conducted a double-blind, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled study to determine if a single administration of laninamivir octanoate 40 mg was superior to placebo for post-exposure prophylaxis. Eligible participants who had cohabited with an influenza patient within 48 hours of symptom onset were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 1 of 3 groups: 40 mg of laninamivir octanoate single administration (LO-40SD), 20 mg of laninamivir octanoate once daily for 2 days (LO-20TD), or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants who developed clinical influenza (defined as influenza virus positive, an axillary temperature >37.5°C, and at least 2 symptoms) over a 10-day period.

RESULTS

A total of 803 participants were enrolled, with 801 included in the primary analysis. The proportions of participants with clinical influenza were 4.5% (12/267), 4.5% (13/269), and 12.1% (32/265) in the LO-40SD, LO-20TD, and placebo groups, respectively. A single administration of laninamivir octanoate 40 mg significantly reduced the development of influenza compared with placebo (P = .001). The relative risk reductions compared with the placebo group were 62.8% and 63.1% for the LO-40SD and LO-20TD groups, respectively. The incidence of adverse events in the LO-40SD group was similar to that of the LO-20TD and placebo groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A single administration of laninamivir octanoate was effective and well tolerated as post-exposure prophylaxis to prevent the development of influenza.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

JapicCTI-142679.

Household Transmission of Influenza Virus

Human influenza viruses cause regular epidemics and occasional pandemics with a substantial public health burden. Household transmission studies have provided valuable information on the dynamics of influenza transmission. We reviewed published studies and found that once one household member is infected with influenza, the risk of infection in a household contact can be up to 38%, and the delay between onset in index and secondary cases is around 3 days. Younger age was associated with higher susceptibility. In the future, household transmission studies will provide information on transmission dynamics, including the correlation of virus shedding and symptoms with transmission, and the correlation of new measures of immunity with protection against infection.

Historically, household cohort studies have provided valuable information on the incidence of respiratory infections and risk factors for infection. However, these studies require substantial resources and can provide limited information on transmission dynamics.

Household transmission studies provide an efficient approach to describing the risk of influenza transmission and factors affecting transmission. In these studies, households with at least one member infected by influenza are eligible and are followed intensively for 1–2 weeks to observe secondary transmission within the household.

Transmission studies also provide a model for evaluation of interventions in randomized controlled trials, and have been used to determine the efficacy of antiviral drugs for treatment and prophylaxis, and nonpharmaceutical interventions such as face masks and hand hygiene.

Respiratory Infections in the U.S. Military: Recent Experience and Control

This comprehensive review outlines the impact of military-relevant respiratory infections, with special attention to recruit training environments, influenza pandemics in 1918 to 1919 and 2009 to 2010, and peacetime operations and conflicts in the past 25 years. Outbreaks and epidemiologic investigations of viral and bacterial infections among high-risk groups are presented, including (i) experience by recruits at training centers, (ii) impact on advanced trainees in special settings, (iii) morbidity sustained by shipboard personnel at sea, and (iv) experience of deployed personnel. Utilizing a pathogen-by-pathogen approach, we examine (i) epidemiology, (ii) impact in terms of morbidity and operational readiness, (iii) clinical presentation and outbreak potential, (iv) diagnostic modalities, (v) treatment approaches, and (vi) vaccine and other control measures. We also outline military-specific initiatives in (i) surveillance, (ii) vaccine development and policy, (iii) novel influenza and coronavirus diagnostic test development and surveillance methods, (iv) influenza virus transmission and severity prediction modeling efforts, and (v) evaluation and implementation of nonvaccine, nonpharmacologic interventions.

Overview of the 3rd isirv-Antiviral Group Conference--advances in clinical management

This review highlights the main points which emerged from the presentations and discussions at the 3rd isirv-Antiviral Group Conference - advances in clinical management. The conference covered emerging and potentially pandemic influenza viruses and discussed novel/pre-licensure therapeutics and currently approved antivirals and vaccines for the control of influenza. Current data on approved and novel treatments for non-influenza respiratory viruses such as MERS-CoV, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and rhinoviruses and the challenges of treating immunocompromised patients with respiratory infections was highlighted.

Seasonal Human Influenza: Treatment Options

Seasonal influenza can be a self-limiting illness in healthy individuals but is associated with short-term morbidity and economic burden. Influenza can cause significant morbidity and mortality in young children, the elderly, pregnant and post-partum women, patients with co-morbidities and the immunocompromised. Neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) are the treatment of choice for influenza due to widespread resistance to the adamantanes. NAIs are efficacious for the treatment of influenza in ambulatory patients with mild illness, when initiated within 48 h of symptom onset. Early treatment with NAIs has been shown to reduce otitis media in children, and lower respiratory tract complications, resulting in antibiotic therapy, in adults. Evidence on the efficacy of NAIs for the prevention of influenza-related complications in at-risk populations, based on reviews of data from randomised trials is inconclusive. However, observational studies suggest that in hospitalised patients early treatment with NAIs has been associated with reduced mortality. NAIs should be initiated as soon as possible in patients at high-risk of influenza-related complications, with suspected or proven influenza, hospitalised patients and patients with severe or progressive disease. NAIs can be considered in previously healthy patients when therapy can be initiated within 48 h of symptom onset. In previously healthy patients, the therapeutic efficacy of oseltamivir is time-dependent, with maximal benefit observed when therapy is initiated within 48 h of symptom onset. However, several observational studies suggest therapeutic benefit beyond 48 h, in hospitalised patients, severe disease, and patients at high risk of complications, including pregnant women. NAIs should be considered in patients at high risk of influenza-related complications who present late. Further studies are needed to define the optimal timing of NAIs. Oseltamivir-resistant virus has been widely reported but is predominantly an issue in H1N1 seasonal influenza. Zanamivir-resistant influenza virus is rare, and inhaled or intravenous (IV) zanamivir is the treatment of choice in proven or suspected oseltamivir-resistant virus. Intubated patients with severe influenza can be treated with oseltamivir (suspension) administered via nasogastric tube. The commercial dry powder formulation of zanamivir should not be administered, via nebulisation, as it has been associated with ventilator malfunction and mortality. In intubated patients, when there are concerns about gastric absorption, IV zanamivir should be obtained under Emergency Investigational New Drug access schemes. Currently available evidence does not support the use of high-dose or extended-duration oseltamivir in patients with severe influenza, but does require further investigation. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation has not been shown to be superior to conventional management in patients with influenza-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and should be considered as salvage therapy. Corticosteriods should not be used in the treatment of severe influenza as this has been associated with increased risk of mortality and bacterial superinfection.

Spread of viral infection to family members from influenza patients treated with a neuraminidase inhibitor

We compared the incidence rates of household secondary infection among influenza patients prescribed laninamivir, oseltamivir, or zanamivir (neuraminidase inhibitors), based on health-insurance claims data owned by Japan Medical Data Center (JMDC) which was consisting of medical information on patients who were prescribed an anti-influenza drug and their family members between October 2010 and July 2011. The date when an index case patient was prescribed laninamivir, oseltamivir or zanamivir for the first time was defined as "Day 1". If other members in the same family were prescribed laninamivir, oseltamivir, zanamivir, or peramivir during Days 3-8, we assumed any household secondary infection had occurred. The incidence rate was 11.0%, 14.3%, and 11.6% in index case patients prescribed laninamivir, oseltamivir, and zanamivir, respectively. The results of the logistic regression analysis revealed a significant difference between laninamivir and oseltamivir, while no significant difference was observed between laninamivir and zanamivir.

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.

Identification of bioactivating enzymes involved in the hydrolysis of laninamivir octanoate, a long-acting neuraminidase inhibitor, in human pulmonary tissue

Laninamivir octanoate (LO) is an octanoyl ester prodrug of the neuraminidase inhibitor laninamivir. After inhaled administration, LO exhibits clinical efficacy for both treatment and prophylaxis of influenza virus infection, resulting from hydrolytic bioactivation into its pharmacologically active metabolite laninamivir in the pulmonary tissue. In this study, we focused on the identification of LO-hydrolyzing enzymes from human pulmonary tissue extract using proteomic correlation profiling-a technology integration of traditional biochemistry and proteomics. In a single elution step by gel-filtration chromatography, LO-hydrolyzing activity was separated into two distinct peaks, designated as peak I and peak II. By mass spectrometry, 1160 and 1003 proteins were identified and quantitated for peak I and peak II, respectively, and enzyme candidates were ranked based on the correlation coefficient between the enzyme activity and the proteomic profiles. Among proteins with a high correlation value, S-formylglutathione hydrolase (esterase D; ESD) and acyl-protein thioesterase 1 (APT1) were selected as the most likely candidates for peak I and peak II, respectively, which was confirmed by LO-hydrolyzing activity of recombinant proteins. In the case of peak II, LO-hydrolyzing activity was completely inhibited by treatment with a specific APT1 inhibitor, palmostatin B. Moreover, immunohistochemical analysis revealed that both enzymes were mainly localized in the pulmonary epithelia, a primary site of influenza virus infection. These findings demonstrate that ESD and APT1 are key enzymes responsible for the bioactivation of LO in human pulmonary tissue.