Use of the selective oral neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir to prevent influenza.
(1/582)
BACKGROUND: Safe and effective antiviral agents are needed to prevent infection with influenza A and B virus. Oseltamivir (GS4104), which can be administered orally, is the prodrug of GS4071, a potent and selective inhibitor of influenzavirus neuraminidases. We studied the use of oseltamivir for long-term prophylaxis against influenza in two placebo-controlled, double-blind trials at different U.S. sites during the winter of 1997-1998. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1559 healthy, nonimmunized adults 18 to 65 years old to receive either oral oseltamivir (75 mg given once or twice daily, for a total daily dose of 75 or 150 mg) or placebo for six weeks during a peak period of local influenzavirus activity. The primary end point with respect to efficacy was laboratory-confirmed influenza-like illness (defined as a temperature of at least 37.2 degrees C accompanied by at least one respiratory and at least one systemic symptom). RESULTS: In the two studies combined, the risk of influenza among subjects assigned to either once-daily or twice-daily oseltamivir (1.2 percent and 1.3 percent, respectively) was lower than that among subjects assigned to placebo (4.8 percent; P<0.001 and P=0.001 for the comparison with once-daily and twice-daily oseltamivir, respectively). The protective efficacy of oseltamivir in the two active-treatment groups combined was 74 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 53 to 88 percent) at all the sites combined and 82 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 60 to 93 percent) at sites in Virginia, where the rate of influenza infection was higher than the overall rate. For culture-proved influenza, the rate of protective efficacy in the two oseltamivir groups combined was 87 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 65 to 96 percent). The rate of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection was lower with oseltamivir than with placebo (5.3 percent vs. 10.6 percent, P<0.001). Oseltamivir was well tolerated but was associated with a greater frequency of nausea (12.1 percent and 14.6 percent in the once-daily and twice-daily groups, respectively) and vomiting (2.5 percent and 2.7 percent, respectively) than was placebo (nausea, 7.1 percent; vomiting, 0.8 percent). However, the frequency of premature discontinuation of drug or placebo was similar among the three groups (3.1 to 4.0 percent). CONCLUSIONS: Oseltamivir administered daily for six weeks by the oral route is safe and effective for the prevention of influenza. (+info)
Neuraminidase inhibitors for treatment of influenza A and B infections.
(2/582)
Influenza epidemics are responsible for an average of approximately 20,000 deaths per year in the United States. The main method for preventing influenza and its severe complications is influenza vaccination. Influenza-specific antiviral drugs are an important adjunct to vaccine but are not a substitute for vaccine. In the United States, four antiviral agents are approved for preventing or treating influenza: amantadine, rimantadine, zanamivir, and oseltamivir. Amantadine was approved for prophylaxis of influenza A(H2N2) infection in the United States in 1966 and was approved for prophylaxis and treatment of influenza A infection in 1976; rimantadine was approved for treatment and prophylaxis of influenza A infection in 1993 [corrected]. This report provides information on two neuraminidase inhibitors, zanamivir and oseltamivir, which were approved in 1999. Neuraminidase inhibitors are a new class of antiviral drugs that inhibit influenza A and B viruses. Zanamivir is approved for treatment of uncomplicated acute illness caused by influenza virus in persons aged > or =12 years who have been symptomatic for no more than 2 days. Oseltamivir is approved for treatment of uncomplicated illness caused by influenza infection in adults aged > or =18 years who have been symptomatic for no more than 2 days. Neither zanamivir nor oseltamivir is approved for influenza prophylaxis. This report and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) 1999 recommendations on influenza prevention and control (MMWR 1999;48[No.RR-4]:1-28) can be accessed at the website for the Influenza Branch, Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases, CDC, at or at the MMWR website at . (+info)
Metabolism of the influenza neuraminidase inhibitor prodrug oseltamivir in the rat.
(3/582)
The metabolism of [2-acetyl-(14)C]oseltamivir (GS4104, Ro 64-0796), the prodrug of the novel influenza neuraminidase inhibitor GS4071 (Ro 64-0802), was examined in rats after oral dosing. Intact oseltamivir was observed only in lung and urine, accounting for 37 and 15% of the total radioactivity in these samples, respectively. GS4071 was the major metabolite in plasma, tissues, and urine, and accounted for 32 to 56% of the radioactivity present in these samples. The second most abundant peak in these samples (13-24% of radioactivity) was a novel metabolite (M3). This metabolite was purified from urine of rats dosed orally with oseltamivir and was identified by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry and NMR as the (R)-omega-carboxylic acid metabolite of oseltamivir. The omega-carboxylic acid metabolite of oseltamivir could not be produced in vitro. However, omega-hydroxylated products of oseltamivir were produced by rat liver microsomes. Both the (R)- and (S)-omega-hydroxylated products were observed, but formation of the (R)-isomer predominated. These data indicated that in the rat, oseltamivir was primarily metabolized to the active influenza neuraminidase inhibitor GS4071 and, to a lesser extent, to an (R)-omega-carboxylic acid metabolite. (+info)
Updated treatment for influenza A and B.
(4/582)
Influenza causes significant morbidity and mortality and is responsible for considerable medical expenditures. Vaccination is the most effective public health measure to combat this illness. Amantadine and rimantadine are older antiviral agents that have been important adjuncts in the prevention and treatment of influenza A outbreaks. Zanamivir and oseltamivir are newer agents indicated for the treatment of both influenza A and B. For antiviral agents to be effective, they must be used within 48 hours of the onset of influenza symptoms. Antiviral agents reduce the duration of fever and illness by one to two and one-half days and also reduce the severity of some symptoms. Use of amantadine or rimantadine is appropriate if influenza virus A is known to be the predominant agent in a particular year or location. Data need to be evaluated on the development of resistance and use of the newer antiviral agents in geriatric patients, high-risk patients and children. For optimal use of antiviral agents, patients with influenza symptoms must present early, and family physicians must accurately and rapidly diagnose the illness. (+info)
Selection of influenza virus mutants in experimentally infected volunteers treated with oseltamivir.
(5/582)
Volunteers experimentally infected with influenza A/Texas/36/91 (H1N1) virus and treated with the neuraminidase (NA) inhibitor oseltamivir were monitored for the emergence of drug-resistant variants. Two (4%) of 54 resistant viruses were detected by NA inhibition assay among last-day isolates recovered from 54 drug recipients. They bore a substitution His274Tyr in the NA. Hemagglutinin (HA) variants detected in the placebo group differed from the egg-adapted inoculum virus by virtue of amino acid substitutions at residues 137, 225, or both. These variants had a higher affinity for Neu5Ac(alpha2-6)Gal-containing receptors, which are characteristic of human respiratory epithelium, than for Neu5Ac(alpha2-3)Gal-containing receptors, which are typical of chicken egg allantoic membrane. Although appearing to be more sensitive to oseltamivir in humans, the variants with increased affinity for Neu5Ac(alpha2-6)Gal receptors were less sensitive than the Neu5Ac(alpha2-3)Gal-binding variants in Madin-Darby canine kidney cells. Thus, HA affinity for receptors is an essential feature of influenza virus susceptibility to NA inhibitors, both in cell culture and in humans. (+info)
In vivo influenza virus-inhibitory effects of the cyclopentane neuraminidase inhibitor RJW-270201.
(6/582)
The cyclopentane influenza virus neuraminidase inhibitor RWJ-270201 was evaluated against influenza A/NWS/33 (H1N1), A/Shangdong/09/93 (H3N2), A/Victoria/3/75 (H3N2), and B/Hong Kong/05/72 virus infections in mice. Treatment was by oral gavage twice daily for 5 days beginning 4 h pre-virus exposure. The influenza virus inhibitor oseltamivir was run in parallel, and ribavirin was included in studies with the A/Shangdong and B/Hong Kong viruses. RWJ-270201 was inhibitory to all infections using doses as low as 1 mg/kg/day. Oseltamivir was generally up to 10-fold less effective than RWJ-270201. Ribavirin was also inhibitory but was less tolerated by the mice at the 75-mg/kg/day dose used. Disease-inhibitory effects included prevention of death, lessening of decline of arterial oxygen saturation, inhibition of lung consolidation, and reduction in lung virus titers. RWJ-270201 and oseltamivir, at doses of 10 and 1 mg/kg/day each, were compared with regard to their effects on daily lung parameters in influenza A/Shangdong/09/93 virus-infected mice. Maximum virus titer inhibition was seen on day 1, with RWJ-270201 exhibiting the greater inhibitory effect, a titer reduction of >10(4) cell culture 50% infective doses (CCID(50))/g. By day 8, the lung virus titers in mice treated with RWJ-270201 had declined to 10(1.2) CCID(50)/g, whereas titers from oseltamivir-treated animals were >10(3) CCID(50)/g. Mean lung consolidation was also higher in the oseltamivir-treated animals on day 8. Both neuraminidase inhibitors were well tolerated by the mice. RWJ-270201 was nontoxic at doses as high as 1,000 mg/kg/day. These data indicate potential for the oral use of RWJ-270201 in the treatment of influenza virus infections in humans. (+info)
Comparison of the anti-influenza virus activity of RWJ-270201 with those of oseltamivir and zanamivir.
(7/582)
We have recently reported an influenza virus neuraminidase inhibitor, RWJ-270201 (BCX-1812), a novel cyclopentane derivative discovered through structure-based drug design. In this paper, we compare the potency of three compounds, RWJ-270201, oseltamivir, and zanamivir, against neuraminidase enzymes from various subtypes of influenza. RWJ-270201 effectively inhibited all tested influenza A and influenza B neuraminidases in vitro, with 50% inhibitory concentrations of 0.09 to 1.4 nM for influenza A neuraminidases and 0.6 to 11 nM for influenza B neuraminidases. These values were comparable to or lower than those for oseltamivir carboxylate (GS4071) and zanamivir (GG167). RWJ-270201 demonstrated excellent selectivity (>10,000-fold) for influenza virus neuraminidase over mammalian, bacterial, or other viral neuraminidases. Oral administration of a dosage of 1 mg/kg of body weight/day of RWJ-270201 for 5 days (beginning 4 h preinfection) showed efficacy in the murine model of influenza virus infection as determined by lethality and weight loss protection. RWJ-270201 administered intranasally at 0.01 mg/kg/day in the murine influenza model demonstrated complete protection against lethality, whereas oseltamivir carboxylate and zanamivir at the same dose demonstrated only partial protection. In the delayed-treatment murine influenza model, oral administration of a 10-mg/kg/day dose of RWJ-270201 or oseltamivir (GS4104, a prodrug of GS4071) at 24 h postinfection showed significant protection against lethality (P < 0.001 versus control). However, when the treatment was delayed for 48 h, no significant protection was observed in either drug group. No drug-related toxicity was observed in mice receiving 100 mg/kg/day of RWJ-270201 for 5 days. These efficacy and safety profiles justify further consideration of RWJ-270201 for the treatment and prevention of human influenza. (+info)
Experience with oseltamivir in the control of a nursing home influenza B outbreak.
(8/582)
Oseltamivir prophylaxis was very effective in protecting nursing home residents from ILI and in halting this outbreak of influenza B. A portion of the total ILI cases may have been due to influenza A, as this strain was isolated in one resident. The 10% attack rate in this facility, controlled with oseltamivir, compares favourably with another influenza B outbreak in a similar facility in the same region, over the same time frame (ILI onset 27 December to 17 January). Oseltamivir prophylaxis was not used to manage this second outbreak of laboratory-confirmed influenza B. Of the 236 residents, 45 developed ILI for an overall attack rate of 19%, nearly double the rate in the oseltamivir-controlled setting (10%). While oseltamivir was effective in controlling influenza B in this outbreak, further experience and evaluation is required before it can be routinely recommended for prophylaxis of influenza in nursing home outbreaks. Although earlier attempts by others using oseltamivir in the control of influenza A outbreaks have also met with success, it is not yet licensed for this purpose. Compared to amantadine, oseltamivir has a relatively high cost for the control of influenza A outbreaks and this may continue to limit its wider acceptance. The cost-effectiveness of oseltamivir in the control of influenza B outbreaks needs to be specifically addressed given the typically milder nature of influenza B strains. However, such a distinction is not clinically reliable and elderly residents of long-term care facilities remain vulnerable to serious complications associated with influenza infection in general. An alternate agent for influenza chemoprophylaxis that is effective against both influenza A and B, is easily administered and has few side effects, could greatly enhance current prevention and control measures and warrants serious assessment. The spread of this outbreak from the geographically separate ward to other areas of the facility in which residents had not received prophylaxis, underscores the likely role of staff as a vehicle for transmission during facility outbreaks. While accurate staff ILI rates could not be determined, their immunization rates were low, and many staff were ill during the outbreak. Isolation of residents with ILI and prophylaxis of non-ill residents on the initial outbreak wards was insufficient to prevent the spread of the outbreak, although it was subsequently halted once prophylaxis was extended to all residents. In view of the uncertainty over this medication's widespread use, in the absence of licensure or previous studies demonstrating its effectiveness in the prophylaxis and control of influenza B outbreaks, initiation of oseltamivir prophylaxis was staggered by ward. In a declared influenza A outbreak, the protocol in a long term care facility is to initiate amantadine prophylaxis on all residents, rather than ward-by-ward. While anti-viral prophylaxis may be an effective secondary control measure in the management of influenza outbreaks, optimal primary prevention would be more effective. This would require increased vaccine coverage of residents and particularly of staff, who play an important role in the importation and transmission of influenza within these facilities. (+info)