The effect of zanamivir treatment on the early immune response to influenza vaccination

Antibody dynamics in Japanese paediatric patients with influenza A infection treated with neuraminidase inhibitors in a randomised trial

Neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) complement influenza virus infection management by helping to clear virus, alleviate symptoms, and reduce transmission. In a previous randomised study, we examined the effect of 4 NAIs on virus clearance and influenza symptoms in Japanese paediatric patients. In this second analysis, we examined the effects of NAI treatment on antibody responses and virus clearance, and the relationships between antibody responses and patients' infection histories (previous infection; asymptomatic infection via household members of same virus type/subtype; vaccination), and between infection histories and viral kinetics. Haemagglutination inhibition (HI) antibody responses produced HI titres ≥40 by Day 14 of NAI treatment, in parallel with virus clearance (trend test P = 0.001). Comparing patients with and without influenza infection histories (directly or asymptomatic infection via household members) showed that infection history had a marked positive effect on HI antibody responses in patients vaccinated before the current influenza season (before enrolment). Current virus clearance was significantly faster in patients previously infected with the same virus type/subtype than in those not previously infected, and clearance pattern depended on the NAI. Assessment of anti-influenza effects of antiviral drugs and vaccines should consider virus and antibody dynamics in response to vaccination and natural infection histories.

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and harms of NIs for influenza in all age groups by reviewing all clinical study reports (CSRs) of published and unpublished randomised, placebo-controlled trials and regulatory comments; and (2) determine the effect of oseltamivir (Tamiflu(®), Roche) treatment on mortality in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.

The mechanisms of delayed onset type adverse reactions to oseltamivir

Oseltamivir is recommended for the treatment and prophylaxis of influenza in persons at higher risk for influenza complications such as individuals with diabetes, neuropsychiatric illnesses, and respiratory, cardiac, renal, hepatic or haematological diseases. However, a recent Cochrane review reported that reduction of antibody production, renal disorders, hyperglycaemia, psychiatric disorders, and QT prolongation may be related to oseltamivir use. The underlying mechanisms are reviewed. There is decisive evidence that administration of a clinically compatible dose of oseltamivir in mice challenged by a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) that lacks a neuraminidase gene showed symptom-relieving effects and inhibition of viral clearance. These effects were accompanied by decreased level of T cell surface sialoglycosphingolipid (ganglioside) GM1 that is regulated by the endogenous neuraminidase in response to viral challenge. Clinical and non-clinical evidence supports the view that the usual dose of oseltamivir suppresses pro-inflammatory cytokines such as interferon-gamma, interleukin-6, and tumour necrosis factor-alpha almost completely with partial suppression of viral shedding in human influenza virus infection experiment. Animal toxicity tests support the clinical evidence with regard to renal and cardiac disorders (bradycardia and QT prolongation) and do not disprove the metabolic effect. Reduction of antibody production and cytokine induction and renal, metabolic, cardiac, and prolonged psychiatric disorders after oseltamivir use may be related to inhibition of the host’s endogenous neuraminidase. While the usual clinical dose of zanamivir may not have this effect, a higher dose or prolonged administration of zanamivir and other neuraminidase inhibitors may induce similar delayed reactions, including reduction of the antibody and/or cytokine production.

Selenium supplementation has beneficial and detrimental effects on immunity to influenza vaccine in older adults

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Mortality resulting from influenza (flu) virus infections occurs primarily in the elderly through declining immunity. Studies in mice have suggested beneficial effects of selenium (Se) supplementation on immunity to flu but similar evidence is lacking in humans. A dietary intervention study was therefore designed to test the effects of Se-supplementation on a variety of parameters of anti-flu immunity in healthy subjects aged 50-64 years.

METHODS

A 12-week randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.govNCT00279812) was undertaken in six groups of individuals with plasma Se levels <110 ng/mL. Four groups were given daily capsules of yeast enriched with 0 μg Se/day (SeY-0/d; n = 20), 50 μg Se/d (SeY-50/d; n = 18), 100 μg Se/d (SeY-100/d; n = 21) or 200 μg Se/d (SeY-200/d; n = 23). Two groups were given onion-containing meals with either <1 μg Se/d (SeO-0/d; n = 17) or 50 μg Se/d (SeO-50/d; n = 18). Flu vaccine was administrated at week 10 and immune parameters were assessed until week 12.

RESULTS

Primary study endpoints were changes in cellular and humoral immune responses. Supplementation with SeY and SeO affected different aspects of cellular immunity. SeY increased Tctx-ADCC cell counts in blood (214%, SeY-100/d) before flu vaccination and a dose-dependent increase in T cell proliferation (500%, SeY-50/100/200/d), IL-8 (169%, SeY-100/d) and IL-10 (317%, SeY-200/d) secretion after in vivo flu challenge. Positive effects were contrasted by lower granzyme B content of CD8 cells (55%, SeY-200/d). SeO (Se 50 μg/d) also enhanced T cell proliferation after vaccination (650%), IFN-γ (289%), and IL-8 secretion (139%), granzyme (209%) and perforin (190%) content of CD8 cells but inhibited TNF-α synthesis (42%). Onion on its own reduced the number of NKT cells in blood (38%). These effects were determined by comparison to group-specific baseline yeast or onion control groups. Mucosal flu-specific antibody responses were unaffected by Se-supplementation.

CONCLUSION

Se-supplementation in healthy human adults with marginal Se status resulted in both beneficial and detrimental effects on cellular immunity to flu that was affected by the form of Se, supplemental dose and delivery matrix. These observations call for a thorough evaluation of the risks and benefits associated with Se-supplementation.

Inulin-Type β2-1 Fructans have Some Effect on the Antibody Response to Seasonal Influenza Vaccination in Healthy Middle-Aged Humans

β2-1 fructans are prebiotics and, as such, may modulate some aspects of immune function. Improved immune function could enhance the host’s ability to respond to infections. There is limited information on the effects of β2-1 fructans on immune responses in humans. The objective of the study was to determine the effect of a specific combination of long-chain inulin and oligofructose (Orafti^® Synergy1) on immune function in middle-aged humans, with the primary outcome being response to seasonal influenza vaccination. Healthy middle-aged humans (45–63 years of age) were randomly allocated to consume β2-1 fructans in the form of Orafti^® Synergy1 (8 g/day; n = 22) or maltodextrin as control (8 g/day; n = 21) for 8 weeks. After 4 weeks, participants received the 2008/2009 seasonal influenza vaccine. Blood and saliva samples were collected prior to vaccination and 2 and 4 weeks after vaccination. They were used to measure various immune parameters. The primary outcome was the serum concentration of anti-vaccine antibodies. Serum antibody titers against the vaccine and vaccine-specific immunoglobulin concentrations increased post-vaccination. Antibodies to the H3N2-like hemagglutinin type 3, neuraminidase type 2-like strain were higher in the Synergy1 group (P = 0.020 for overall effect of treatment group), as was serum vaccine-specific IgG1 2 weeks post-vaccination (P = 0.028 versus control). There were no other differences between groups in antibody titers or anti-vaccine immunoglobulin concentrations, in blood immune cell phenotypes, or in a range of immune parameters. It is concluded that Orafti^® Synergy1, a combination of β2-1 fructans, can enhance some aspects of the immune response in healthy middle-aged adults, but that this is not a global effect.

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.

An impulsive delayed SEIRS epidemic model with saturation incidence

A delayed SEIRS epidemic model with pulse vaccination and saturation incidence rate is investigated. Using Krasnoselskii's fixed-point theorem, we obtain the existence of infection-free periodic solution of the impulsive delayed epidemic system. We define some new threshold values R(1), R(2) and R(3). Further, using the comparison theorem, we obtain the explicit formulae of R(1) and R(2). Under the condition R(1) < 1, the infection-free periodic solution is globally attractive, and that R(2) > 1 implies that the disease is permanent. Theoretical results show that the disease will be extinct if the vaccination rate is larger than θ* and the disease is uniformly persistent if the vaccination rate is less than θ(*). Our results indicate that a long latent period of the disease or a large pulse vaccination rate will lead to eradication of the disease. Moreover, we prove that the disease will be permanent as R(3) > 1.

Management of influenza virus infections with neuraminidase inhibitors: detection, incidence, and implications of drug resistance

Although influenza vaccination remains the primary method for the prevention of influenza, efficacy may be limited by a poor match between the vaccine and circulating strains and the poor response of elderly patients. Hence, there is an important role for antiviral therapy in the management of influenza. While amantadine and rimantadine have been available for the treatment of influenza in some countries for several years, they are only effective against influenza A viruses, they can have neurological and gastrointestinal adverse effects, and resistant virus is rapidly generated. Neuraminidase inhibitors, a new class of drug, are potent and specific inhibitors of all strains of influenza virus, and they have minimal adverse effects. The greatest benefit is seen in those patients presenting <30 hours after development of influenza symptoms, those with severe symptoms or those in high-risk groups. In addition to treatment of the infection, both drugs are effective prophylactically and have been shown to limit spread of infection in close communities, such as families and in nursing homes. No resistant virus strains have been isolated from normal individuals treated with zanamivir. Resistant virus can be isolated from approximately 1% of adults and 5% of paediatric patients with influenza treated with oseltamivir. However, infectivity of mutant viruses is generally compromised. Governments spend millions of dollars on influenza vaccination campaigns; however, once influenza virus is circulating in the community, vaccination cannot limit the spread of disease. A greater promotion of the use of neuraminidase inhibitors for the treatment and prevention of influenza could have a significant impact on limiting its spread. This could result in saving millions of dollars, not only in direct costs associated with medical and hospital care, but also significant savings in indirect costs associated with the loss of productivity at work, school and home environments. For the benefit of all communities, there needs to be a greater awareness of the symptoms of influenza and the efficacy of neuraminidase inhibitors in disease treatment.

Influenza virus: immunity and vaccination strategies. Comparison of the immune response to inactivated and live, attenuated influenza vaccines

Influenza virus is a globally important respiratory pathogen which causes a high degree of morbidity and mortality annually. The virus is continuously undergoing antigenic change and thus bypasses the host's acquired immunity to influenza. Despite the improvement in antiviral therapy during the last decade, vaccination is still the most effective method of prophylaxis. Vaccination induces a good degree of protection (60-90% efficacy) and is well tolerated by the recipient. For those at risk of complications from influenza, annual vaccination is recommended due to the antigenic changes in circulating strains. However, there is still room for improvement in vaccine efficacy, long-lasting effect, ease of administration and compliance rates. The mucosal tissues of the respiratory tract are the main portal entry of influenza, and the mucosal immune system provides the first line of defence against infection. Secretory immunoglobulin A (SIgA) and IgM are the major neutralizing antibodies directed against mucosal pathogens. These antibodies work to prevent pathogen entry and can function intracellularly to inhibit replication of virus. This review describes influenza virus infection, epidemiology, clinical presentation and immune system response, particularly as it pertains to mucosal immunity and vaccine use. Specifically, this review provides an update of the current status on influenza vaccination and concentrates on the two main types of influenza vaccines currently in use, namely the cold-adapted vaccine (CAV) given intranasally/orally, and the inactivated vaccine (IV) delivered subcutanously or intramuscularly. The commercially available trivalent IV (TIV) elicits good serum antibody responses but induces poorly mucosal IgA antibody and cell-mediated immunity. In contrast, the CAV may elicit a long-lasting, broader immune (humoral and cellular) response, which more closely resembles natural immunity. The immune response induced by these two vaccines will be compared in this review.