Dataset Information

Efficacy of oseltamivir-zanamivir combination compared to each monotherapy for seasonal influenza: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Neuraminidase inhibitors are thought to be efficacious in reducing the time to alleviation of symptoms in outpatients with seasonal influenza. The objective of this study was to compare the short-term virological efficacy of oseltamivir-zanamivir combination versus each monotherapy plus placebo.We conducted a randomized placebo-controlled trial with 145 general practitioners throughout France during the 2008-2009 seasonal influenza epidemic. Patients, general practitioners, and outcome assessors were all blinded to treatment assignment. Adult outpatients presenting influenza-like illness for less than 36 hours and a positive influenza A rapid test diagnosis were randomized to oseltamivir 75 mg orally twice daily plus zanamivir 10 mg by inhalation twice daily (OZ), oseltamivir plus inhaled placebo (O), or zanamivir plus oral placebo (Z). Treatment efficacy was assessed virologically according to the proportion of patients with nasal influenza reverse transcription (RT)-PCR below 200 copies genome equivalent (cgeq)/µl at day 2 (primary outcome), and clinically to the time to alleviation of symptoms until day 14. Overall 541 patients (of the 900 planned) were included (OZ, ?=192; O, n=176; Z, n=173), 49% male, mean age 39 years. In the intention-to-treat analysis conducted in the 447 patients with RT-PCR-confirmed influenza A, 46%, 59%, and 34% in OZ (n=157), O (n=141), and Z (n=149) arms had RT-PCR<200 cgeq/µl (-13.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -23.1 to -2.9, p=0.025; +12.3%, 95% CI 2.39-22.2, p=0.028 for OZ/O and OZ/Z comparisons). Mean day 0 to day 2 viral load decrease was 2.14, 2.49, and 1.68 log(10) cgeq/µl (p=0.060, p=0.016 for OZ/O and OZ/Z). Median time to alleviation of symptoms was 4.0, 3.0, and 4.0 days (+1.0, 95% CI 0.0-4.0, p=0.018; +0.0, 95% CI -3.0 to 3.0, p=0.960 for OZ/O and OZ/Z). Four severe adverse events were observed. Nausea and/or vomiting tended to be more frequent in the combination arm (OZ, n=13; O, n=4; and Z, n=5 patients, respectively).In adults with seasonal influenza A mainly H3N2 virus infection, the oseltamivir-zanamivir combination appeared less effective than oseltamivir monotherapy, and not significantly more effective than zanamivir monotherapy. Despite the theoretical potential for the reduction of the emergence of antiviral resistance, the lower effectiveness of this combination calls for caution in its use in clinical practice.www.ClinicalTrials.govNCT00799760.

SUBMITTER: Duval X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2970549 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of oseltamivir-zanamivir combination compared to each monotherapy for seasonal influenza: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

Duval Xavier X van der Werf Sylvie S Blanchon Thierry T Mosnier Anne A Bouscambert-Duchamp Maude M Tibi Annick A Enouf Vincent V Charlois-Ou Cécile C Vincent Corine C Andreoletti Laurent L Tubach Florence F Lina Bruno B Mentré France F Leport Catherine C

PLoS medicine 20101102 11

<h4>Background</h4>Neuraminidase inhibitors are thought to be efficacious in reducing the time to alleviation of symptoms in outpatients with seasonal influenza. The objective of this study was to compare the short-term virological efficacy of oseltamivir-zanamivir combination versus each monotherapy plus placebo.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>We conducted a randomized placebo-controlled trial with 145 general practitioners throughout France during the 2008-2009 seasonal influenza epidemic. Patien ...[more]

PMID: 21072246

Similar Datasets

Project description:Influenza virus neuraminidase (NA) drug resistance is one of the challenges to preparedness against epidemic and pandemic influenza virus infections. NA N1- and N2-containing influenza viruses are the primary cause of seasonal epidemics and past pandemics. The structural and functional basis underlying drug resistance of the influenza virus N1 NA is well characterized. Yet drug resistance of the N2 strain is not well understood. Here, we confirm that replacement of N2 E119 or I222 results in multidrug resistance, and when the replacements occur together, the sensitivity to NA inhibitors (NAI) is reduced severely. Using crystallographic studies, we showed that E119 replacement results in a loss of hydrogen bonding to oseltamivir and zanamivir, whereas I222 replacement results in a change in the hydrophobic environment that is critical for oseltamivir binding. Moreover, we found that MS-257, a zanamivir-oseltamivir hybrid inhibitor, is less susceptible to drug resistance. The binding mode of MS-257 shows that increased hydrogen bonding interactions between the inhibitor and NA active site anchor the inhibitor within the active site and allow adjustments in response to active-site modifications. Such stability is likely responsible for the observed reduced susceptibility to drug resistance. MS-257 serves as a next-generation anti-influenza virus drug candidate and serves also as a scaffold for further design of NAIs.ImportanceOseltamivir and zanamivir are the two major antiviral drugs available for the treatment of influenza virus infections. However, multidrug-resistant viruses have emerged in clinical cases, which pose a challenge for the development of new drugs. N1 and N2 subtypes exist in the viruses which cause seasonal epidemics and past pandemics. Although N1 drug resistance is well characterized, the molecular mechanisms underlying N2 drug resistance are unknown. A previous report showed that an N2 E119V/I222L dual mutant conferred drug resistance to seasonal influenza virus. Here, we confirm that these substitutions result in multidrug resistance and dramatically reduced sensitivity to NAI. We further elucidate the molecular mechanism underlying N2 drug resistance by solving crystal structures of the N2 E119V and I222L mutants and the dual mutant. Most importantly, we found that a novel oseltamivir-zanamivir hybrid inhibitor, MS-257, remains more effective against drug-resistant N2 and is a promising candidate as a next-generation anti-influenza virus drug.

Project description:BackgroundInfluenza continues to have a substantial socioeconomic and health impact despite a long established vaccination programme and approved antivirals. Preclinical data suggest that combining antivirals might be more effective than administering oseltamivir alone in the treatment of influenza.MethodsWe did a randomised, double-blind, multicentre phase 2 trial of a combination of oseltamivir, amantadine, and ribavirin versus oseltamivir monotherapy with matching placebo for the treatment of influenza in 50 sites, consisting of academic medical centre clinics, emergency rooms, and private physician offices in the USA, Thailand, Mexico, Argentina, and Australia. Participants who were aged at least 18 years with influenza and were at increased risk of complications were randomly assigned (1:1) by an online computer-generated randomisation system to receive either oseltamivir (75 mg), amantadine (100 mg), and ribavirin (600 mg) combination therapy or oseltamivir monotherapy twice daily for 5 days, given orally, and participants were followed up for 28 days. Blinded treatment kits were used to achieve masking of patients and staff. The primary endpoint was the percentage of participants with virus detectable by PCR in nasopharyngeal swab at day 3, and was assessed in participants who were randomised, had influenza infection confirmed by the central laboratory on a baseline nasopharyngeal sample, and had received at least one dose of study drug. Safety assessment was done in all patients in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01227967.FindingsBetween March 1, 2011, and April 29, 2016, 633 participants were randomly assigned to receive combination antiviral therapy (n=316) or monotherapy (n=317). Seven participants were excluded from analysis: three were not properly randomised, three withdrew from the study, and one was lost to follow-up. The primary analysis included 394 participants, excluding 47 in the pilot phase, 172 without confirmed influenza, and 13 without an endpoint sample. 80 (40·0%) of 200 participants in the combination group had detectable virus at day 3 compared with 97 (50·0%) of 194 (mean difference 10·0, 95% CI 0·2-19·8, p=0·046) in the monotherapy group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal-related disorders, primarily nausea (65 [12%] of 556 reported adverse events in the combination group vs 63 [11%] of 585 reported adverse events in the monotherapy group), diarrhoea (56 [10%] of 556 vs 64 [11%] of 585), and vomiting (39 [7%] of 556 vs 23 [4%] of 585). There was no benefit in multiple clinical secondary endpoints, such as median duration of symptoms (4·5 days in the combination group vs 4·0 days in the monotherapy group; p=0·21). One death occurred in the study in an elderly participant in the monotherapy group who died of cardiovascular failure 13 days after randomisation, judged by the site investigator as not related to study intervention.InterpretationAlthough combination treatment showed a significant decrease in viral shedding at day 3 relative to monotherapy, this difference was not associated with improved clinical benefit. More work is needed to understand why there was no clinical benefit when a difference in virological outcome was identified.FundingNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, USA.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Oseltamivir is the preferred antiviral drug for influenza, but oseltamivir-resistant A(H1N1) viruses have circulated worldwide since the 2007-2008 influenza season. We aimed to determine the rate of oseltamivir resistance among A(H1N1) isolates from Yamagata, Japan, to compare the virological characteristics between isolates from the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 seasons, and to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of oseltamivir. RESULTS: Oseltamivir resistance, determined by detecting the H275Y mutation in the neuraminidase (NA) gene, was observed in 2.5% (2 of 79) and 100% (77 of 77) of isolates from the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 seasons, respectively. Antigenic analysis suggested that antigenically different variants of A(H1N1) viruses circulated in the 2008-2009 season. Growth testing demonstrated that the ability of the 2008-2009 isolates to replicate in MDCK cells was similar to those of the oseltamivir-susceptible isolates from the 2007-2008 season. A phylogenetic analysis revealed that two oseltamivir-resistant viruses isolated in the 2007-2008 season were closely related to other oseltamivir-susceptible viruses in Yamagata but were different from oseltamivir-resistant viruses isolated in Europe and North America in the 2007-2008 season. The oseltamivir-resistant viruses isolated in Japan in the 2008-2009 season were phylogenetically similar to oseltamivir-resistant isolates from Europe and North America during the 2007-2008 season. Furthermore, the median duration of fever after the start of oseltamivir treatment was significantly longer in oseltamivir-resistant cases (2 days; range 1-6 days) than in oseltamivir-susceptible cases (1.5 days: range 1-2 days) (P = 0.0356). CONCLUSION: Oseltamivir-resistant A(H1N1) isolates from Yamagata in the 2007-2008 season might have acquired resistance through the use of oseltamivir, and the 2008-2009 oseltamivir-resistant isolates might have been introduced into Japan and circulated throughout the country. Influenza surveillance to monitor oseltamivir-resistance would aid clinicians in determining an effective antiviral treatment strategy.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of oseltamivir-zanamivir combination compared to each monotherapy for seasonal influenza: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

Publications

Efficacy of oseltamivir-zanamivir combination compared to each monotherapy for seasonal influenza: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets