Intravenous peramivir vs oral oseltamivir in high-risk emergency department patients with influenza: Results from a pilot randomized controlled study

Drug resistance and possible therapeutic options against influenza A virus infection over past years

Influenza A virus infection, commonly known as the flu, has persisted in the community for centuries. Although we have yearly vaccinations to prevent seasonal flu, there remains a dire need for antiviral drugs to treat active infections. The constantly evolving genome of the influenza A virus limits the number of effective antiviral therapeutic options. Over time, antiviral drugs become inefficient due to the development of resistance, as seen with adamantanes, which are now largely ineffective against most circulating strains of the virus. Neuraminidase inhibitors have long been the drug of choice, but due to selection pressure, strains are becoming resistant to this class of drugs. Baloxavir marboxil, a drug with a novel mode of action, can be used against strains resistant to other classes of drugs but is still not available in many countries. Deep research into nanoparticles has shown they are effective as antiviral drugs, opening a new avenue of research to use them as antiviral agents with novel modes of action. As this deadly virus, which has killed millions of people in the past, continues to develop resistance, there is an urgent need for new therapeutic agents with novel modes of action to halt active infections in patients. This review article covers the available therapeutic antiviral drug options with different modes of action, their effectiveness, and resistance to various strains of influenza A virus.

Antiviral drug development by targeting RNA binding site, oligomerization and nuclear export of influenza nucleoprotein

The quasispecies of the influenza virus poses a significant challenge for developing effective therapies. Current antiviral drugs such as oseltamivir, zanamivir, peramivir and baloxavir marboxil along with seasonal vaccines have limitations due to viral variability caused by antigenic drift and shift as well as the development of drug resistance. Therefore, there is a clear need for novel antiviral agents targeting alternative mechanisms, either independently or in combination with existing modalities, to reduce the impact of influenza virus-related infections. The influenza nucleoprotein (NP) is a key component of the viral ribonucleoprotein complex. The multifaceted nature of the NP makes it an attractive target for antiviral intervention. Recent reports have identified inhibitors that specifically target this protein. Recognizing the importance of developing influenza treatments for potential pandemics, this review explores the structural and functional aspects of NP and highlights its potential as an emerging target for anti-influenza drugs. We discuss various strategies for targeting NP, including RNA binding, oligomerization, and nuclear export, and also consider the potential of NP-based vaccines. Overall, this review provides insights into recent developments and future perspectives on targeting influenza NP for antiviral therapies.

Retracted and republished from: "The current state of research on influenza antiviral drug development: drugs in clinical trial and licensed drugs"

Influenza viruses (IVs) threaten global human health due to the high morbidity, infection, and mortality rates. Currently, the influenza drugs recommended by the Food and Drug Administration are oseltamivir, zanamivir, peramivir, and baloxavir marboxil. These recommended antivirals are currently effective for major subtypes of IVs as the compounds target conserved domains in neuraminidase or polymerase acidic (PA) protein. However, this trend may gradually change due to the selection of antiviral drugs and the natural evolution of IVs. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop drugs related to the treatment of influenza to deal with the next pandemic. Here, we summarized the cutting-edge research in mechanism of action, inhibitory activity, and clinical efficacy of drugs that have been approved and drugs that are still in clinical trials for influenza treatment. We hope this review will provide up-to-date and comprehensive information on influenza antivirals and generate hypotheses for screens and development of new broad-spectrum influenza drugs in the near future.

Viral Pneumonia: From Influenza to COVID-19

Respiratory viruses are increasingly recognized as a cause of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). The implementation of new diagnostic technologies has facilitated their identification, especially in vulnerable population such as immunocompromised and elderly patients and those with severe cases of pneumonia. In terms of severity and outcomes, viral pneumonia caused by influenza viruses appears similar to that caused by non-influenza viruses. Although several respiratory viruses may cause CAP, antiviral therapy is available only in cases of CAP caused by influenza virus or respiratory syncytial virus. Currently, evidence-based supportive care is key to managing severe viral pneumonia. We discuss the evidence surrounding epidemiology, diagnosis, management, treatment, and prevention of viral pneumonia.

The current state of research on influenza antiviral drug development: drugs in clinical trial and licensed drugs

Influenza viruses (IVs) threaten global human health due to the high morbidity, infection, and mortality rates. Currently, the influenza drugs recommended by the FDA are oseltamivir, zanamivir, peramivir, and baloxavir marboxil. Notably, owing to the high variability of IVs, no drug exists that can effectively treat all types and subtypes of IVs. Moreover, the current trend of drug resistance is likely to continue as the viral genome is constantly mutating. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop drugs related to the treatment of influenza to deal with the next pandemic. Here, we summarized the cutting-edge research in mechanism of action, inhibitory activity, and clinical efficacy of drugs that have been approved and drugs that are still in clinical trials for influenza treatment. We hope this review will provide up-to-date and comprehensive information on influenza antivirals and generate hypotheses for screens and development of new broad-spectrum influenza drugs in the near future.

Comparative effectiveness of oseltamivir versus peramivir for hospitalized children (aged 0-5 years) with influenza infection

OBJECTIVES

The effectiveness of oseltamivir versus peramivir in children infected with influenza remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate their effectiveness in young children (aged 0-5 years) infected with severe influenza A virus (IAV) or influenza B virus (IBV).

METHODS

We analyzed a cohort of 1662 young children with either IAV (N = 1095) or IBV (N = 567) who received oseltamivir or peramivir treatment from January 1, 2018 to March 31, 2022. Propensity score matching methods were applied to match children who were oseltamivir-treated versus peramivir-treated.

RESULTS

Children who were IAV-infected and IBV-infected shared similar features, such as influenza-associated symptoms and comorbidities at baseline. Among children infected with IAV with bacterial coinfection, the recovery rate was significantly greater in children treated with oseltamivir than in children treated with peramivir (15.6% vs 4.4%, P = 0.01). The median duration of hospitalization was also shorter in children treated with oseltamivir. Among children infected with IAV without bacterial coinfection, the recovery rate was greater in children treated with oseltamivir than in children treated with peramivir (21.1% vs 3.7%, P = 0.002). However, oseltamivir and peramivir offered similar recovery rates and duration of hospitalization (P >0.05 for both) among children infected with IBV.

CONCLUSION

Oseltamivir and peramivir exhibit similar effectiveness in young children with severe influenza B, whereas oseltamivir demonstrated improved recovery and shorter hospitalization in the treatment of severe influenza A in hospitalized children.

Effects of bamlanivimab alone or in combination with etesevimab on subsequent hospitalization and mortality in outpatients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused an enormous loss of life worldwide. The spike protein of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is the cause of its virulence. Bamlanivimab, a recombinant monoclonal antibody, has been used alone or in combination with etesevimab to provide passive immunity and improve clinical outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the therapeutic effects of bamlanivimab with or without etesevimab (BAM/ETE) treatment.

Methods

Our study was registered in PROSPERO (registry number CRD42021270206). We searched the following electronic databases, without language restrictions, until January 2023: PubMed, Embase, medRxiv, and the Cochrane database. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted based on the search results.

Results

Eighteen publications with a total of 28,577 patients were identified. Non-hospitalized patients given bamlanivimab with or without etesevimab had a significantly lower risk of subsequent hospitalization (18 trials, odds ratio (OR): 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI): [0.29-0.49], I²: 69%; p < 0.01) and mortality (15 trials, OR: 0.27, 95% CI [0.17-0.43], I²: 0%; p = 0.85). Bamlanivimab monotherapy also reduced the subsequent risk of hospitalization (16 trials, OR: 0.43, 95% CI [0.34-0.54], I²: 57%; p = 0.01) and mortality (14 trials, OR: 0.28, 95% CI [0.17-0.46], I²: 0%; p = 0.9). Adverse events from these medications were uncommon and tolerable.

Conclusions

In this meta-analysis, we found the use of bamlanivimab with or without etesevimab contributed to a significantly-reduced risk of subsequent hospitalization and mortality in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, resistance to monoclonal antibodies was observed in COVID-19 variants, resulting in the halting of the clinical use of BAM/ETE. Clinicians' experiences with BAM/ETE indicate the importance of genomic surveillance. BAM/ETE may be repurposed as a potential component of a cocktail regimen in treating future COVID variants.

The Hospital Recovery Scale: A clinically useful endpoint in patients hospitalized with influenza

BACKGROUND

Currently, no single best primary endpoint exists for measuring the efficacy of treatments in seriously ill patients with respiratory infections, such as influenza, who require hospitalization. The Hospital Recovery Scale is an ordinal endpoint used to evaluate treatment outcomes in clinical studies of hospitalized patients infected with influenza.

METHODS

To determine whether Hospital Recovery Scale outcomes correspond to those for other clinical endpoints in patients hospitalized due to influenza, data from the phase 3 randomized, double-blind ZORO clinical trial (NCT01231620) were analyzed. Randomized influenza-infected patients were divided into subgroups of interest based on prespecified baseline and infection-related characteristics, as well as randomized treatment arms (intravenous zanamivir 300 mg or 600 mg, or oral oseltamivir 75 mg). Clinical endpoints relevant to this population were included to analyze differences in outcomes between the subgroups, and correspondence of these endpoints and hospital recovery endpoint was evaluated.

RESULTS

Data from 488 patients were analyzed. There were strong correlations (ρ_s > 0.8) between the Hospital Recovery Scale assessed on the day after completion of a 5-day antiviral therapy (Day 6) and both time to hospital discharge and time to intensive care unit discharge, and moderate to strong correlations (0.6 < ρ_s < 0.8) between the Hospital Recovery Scale on Day 6 and several other relevant clinical endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

The Hospital Recovery Scale is applicable as a primary endpoint in trials to evaluate new therapies for severely ill patients hospitalized due to influenza, and may have utility in other severe respiratory illnesses such as COVID-19.

A cross-sectional study of participant recruitment rates in published phase III influenza therapeutic randomized controlled trials conducted in the clinical setting

OBJECTIVE

A recent academic-government partnership demonstrated the feasibility of utilizing Emergency Departments (ED) as a primary site for subject enrollment in clinical trials and achieved high rates of recruitment in two U.S. EDs. Given the ongoing need to test new therapeutics for influenza and other emerging infections, we sought to describe the historical rates of participant recruitment into influenza Phase III therapeutic RCTs in various clinical venues, including EDs.

STUDY DESIGN

A cross-sectional study was performed of influenza therapeutic Phase III RCTs published in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Clinicaltrials.gov from January 2000 to June 2019.

MAIN OUTCOME

To estimate the weighted-average number of influenza-positive participants enrolled per site per season in influenza therapeutic RCT conducted in clinical settings, and to describe basic trial site characteristics.

RESULTS

47 (0.7%) of 7008 articles were included for review of which 43 of 47 (91%) included information regarding enrollment sites; of these, 2 (5%) recruited exclusively from EDs with the remainder recruiting from mixed clinical settings (inpatient, outpatient, and ED). The median enrollment per study was 326 (IQR: 110, 502.5) with a median of 11 sites per study (IQR: 2, 59.5). Included studies reported a median of 201 (IQR: 74, 344.5) confirmed influenza-positive participants per study. The pooled number of participants enrolled per site per season was 11 (95% CI: 10, 12). The pooled enrollment numbers per clinical site after excluding the two 'ED only recruitment' studies were less [10.7 (95% CI: 9.9, 11.6)] than the pooled enrollment numbers per clinical site for the two 'ED only recruitment' studies [89.5 (95% CI 89.2-89.27)].

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Published RCTs evaluating influenza therapeutics in clinical settings recruit participants from multiple sites but enroll relatively few participants, per site, per season. The few ED-based studies reported recruited more subjects per site per season. Untapped opportunities likely exist for EDs to participate and/or lead therapeutic RCTs for influenza or other emerging respiratory pathogens.

Impact of the R292K Mutation on Influenza A (H7N9) Virus Resistance towards Peramivir: A Molecular Dynamics Perspective

In March 2013, a novel avian influenza A (H7N9) virus emerged in China. By March 2021, it had infected more than 1500 people, raising concerns regarding its epidemic potential. Similar to the highly pathogenic H5N1 virus, the H7N9 virus causes severe pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome in most patients. Moreover, genetic analysis showed that this avian H7N9 virus carries human adaptation markers in the hemagglutinin and polymerase basic 2 (PB2) genes associated with cross-species transmissibility. Clinical studies showed that a single mutation, neuraminidase (NA) R292K (N2 numbering), induces resistance to peramivir in the highly pathogenic H7N9 influenza A viruses. Therefore, to evaluate the risk for human public health and understand the possible source of drug resistance, we assessed the impact of the NA-R292K mutation on avian H7N9 virus resistance towards peramivir using various molecular dynamics approaches. We observed that the single point mutation led to a distorted peramivir orientation in the enzyme active site which, in turn, perturbed the inhibitor's binding. The R292K mutation induced a decrease in the interaction among neighboring amino acid residues when compared to its wild-type counterpart, as shown by the high degree of fluctuations in the radius of gyration. MM/GBSA calculations revealed that the mutation caused a decrease in the drug binding affinity by 17.28 kcal/mol when compared to the that for the wild-type enzyme. The mutation caused a distortion of hydrogen bond-mediated interactions with peramivir and increased the accessibility of water molecules around the K292 mutated residue.

Intermolecular Mechanism and Dynamic Investigation of Avian Influenza H7N9 Virus' Susceptibility to E119V-Substituted Peramivir-Neuraminidase Complex

The H7N9 virus attaches itself to the human cell receptor protein containing the polysaccharide that terminates with sialic acid. The mutation of neuraminidase at residue E119 has been explored experimentally. However, there is no adequate information on the substitution with E119V in peramivir at the intermolecular level. Therefore, a good knowledge of the interatomic interactions is a prerequisite in understanding its transmission mode and subsequent effective inhibitions of the sialic acid receptor cleavage by neuraminidase. Herein, we investigated the mechanism and dynamism on the susceptibility of the E119V mutation on the peramivir-neuraminidase complex relative to the wildtype complex at the intermolecular level. This study aims to investigate the impact of the 119V substitution on the neuraminidase-peramivir complex and unveil the residues responsible for the complex conformations. We employed molecular dynamic (MD) simulations and extensive post-MD analyses in the study. These extensive computational investigations were carried out on the wildtype and the E119V mutant complex of the protein for holistic insights in unveiling the effects of this mutation on the binding affinity and the conformational terrain of peramivir-neuraminidase E119V mutation. The calculated total binding energy (ΔGbind) for the peramivir wildtype is -49.09 ± 0.13 kcal/mol, while the E119V mutant is -58.55 ± 0.15 kcal/mol. The increase in binding energy (9.46 kcal/mol) is consistent with other post-MD analyses results, confirming that E119V substitution confers a higher degree of stability on the protein complex. This study promises to proffer contributory insight and additional knowledge that would enhance future drug designs and help in the fight targeted at controlling the avian influenza H7N9 virus. Therefore, we suggest that experimentalists collaborate with computational chemists for all investigations of this topic, as we have done in our previous studies.

Intravenous peramivir vs oral oseltamivir in high-risk emergency department patients with influenza: Results from a pilot randomized controlled study

Background

Peramivir offers a single‐dose intravenous (IV) treatment option for influenza (vs 5‐day oral dosing for oseltamivir). We sought to compare outcomes of emergency department (ED) patients at high risk for influenza complications treated with IV peramivir vs oral oseltamivir.

Methods

During the 2015‐16 and 2016‐17 influenza seasons, adult patients in two US EDs were randomized to either oral oseltamivir or IV peramivir treatment group. Eligibility included positive molecular influenza test; met CDC criteria for antiviral treatment; able to provide informed consent and agree to follow‐up assessment. Outcomes were measured by clinical end‐point indicators, including FLU‐PRO Score, Ordinal Scale, Patient Global Impression on Severity Score, and Karnofsky Performance Scale for 14 days. Non‐inferior t test was performed to assess comparative outcomes between the two groups.

Results

Five hundred and seventy‐five (68%) of 847 influenza‐positive patients were approached. Two hundred and eighty‐four met enrollment criteria and 179 were enrolled; of these 95 (53%) were randomized to peramivir, and 84 to oseltamivir. Average FLU‐PRO score at baseline was similar (peramivir: 2.67 vs oseltamivir: 2.52); the score decreased over time for both groups (day 5: peramivir: 1.71 vs oseltamivir: 1.62; day 10: peramivir: 1.48 vs oseltamivir: 1.37; day 14: peramivir: 1.40 vs oseltamivir: 1.33; all P < .05 for significantly non‐inferior). Influenza‐related complications were similar between two groups (All: peramivir: 31% vs oseltamivir: 21%, P > .05; pneumonia: peramivir: 11% vs oseltamivir: 14%, P > .05).

Conclusions

Clinical outcomes of influenza‐infected patients treated with single‐dose IV peramivir were comparable to those treated with oral oseltamivir, suggesting potential utility of peramivir for influenza‐infected patients in the ED.