Dataset Information

Oseltamivir, amantadine, and ribavirin combination antiviral therapy versus oseltamivir monotherapy for the treatment of influenza: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 2 trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Influenza 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. METHODS:We 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. FINDINGS:Between 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. INTERPRETATION:Although 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. FUNDING:National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, USA.

SUBMITTER: Beigel JH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5777222 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Oseltamivir, amantadine, and ribavirin combination antiviral therapy versus oseltamivir monotherapy for the treatment of influenza: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 2 trial.

Beigel John H JH Bao Yajing Y Beeler Joy J Manosuthi Weerawat W Slandzicki Alex A Dar Sadia M SM Panuto John J Beasley Richard L RL Perez-Patrigeon Santiago S Suwanpimolkul Gompol G Losso Marcelo H MH McClure Natalie N Bozzolo Dawn R DR Myers Christopher C Holley H Preston HP Hoopes Justin J Lane H Clifford HC Hughes Michael D MD Davey Richard T RT

The Lancet. Infectious diseases 20170922 12

<h4>Background</h4>Influenza 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.<h4>Methods</h4>We did a randomised, double-blind, multicentre phase 2 trial of a combination of oseltamivir, amantadine, and ribavirin versus oseltamivir monotherapy with matching placebo fo ...[more]

PMID: 28958678

Similar Datasets

Project description:Widespread resistance among circulating influenza A strains to at least one of the anti-influenza drugs is a major public health concern. A triple combination antiviral drug (TCAD) regimen comprised of amantadine, oseltamivir, and ribavirin has been shown to have synergistic and broad spectrum activity against influenza A strains, including drug resistant strains. Here, we used mathematical modeling along with three different experimental approaches to understand the effects of single agents, double combinations, and the TCAD regimen on resistance in influenza in vitro, including: 1) serial passage at constant drug concentrations, 2) serial passage at escalating drug concentrations, and 3) evaluation of the contribution of each component of the TCAD regimen to the suppression of resistance. Consistent with the modeling which demonstrated that three drugs were required to suppress the emergence of resistance in influenza A, treatment with the TCAD regimen resulted in the sustained suppression of drug resistant viruses, whereas treatment with amantadine alone or the amantadine-oseltamivir double combination led to the rapid selection of resistant variants which comprised ?100% of the population. Furthermore, the TCAD regimen imposed a high genetic barrier to resistance, requiring multiple mutations in order to escape the effects of all the drugs in the regimen. Finally, we demonstrate that each drug in the TCAD regimen made a significant contribution to the suppression of virus breakthrough and resistance at clinically achievable concentrations. Taken together, these data demonstrate that the TCAD regimen was superior to double combinations and single agents at suppressing resistance, and that three drugs at a minimum were required to impede the selection of drug resistant variants in influenza A virus. The use of mathematical modeling with multiple experimental designs and molecular readouts to evaluate and optimize combination drug regimens for the suppression of resistance may be broadly applicable to other infectious diseases.

Project description:The rapid emergence and subsequent spread of the novel 2009 Influenza A/H1N1 virus (2009 H1N1) has prompted the World Health Organization to declare the first pandemic of the 21st century, highlighting the threat of influenza to public health and healthcare systems. Widespread resistance to both classes of influenza antivirals (adamantanes and neuraminidase inhibitors) occurs in both pandemic and seasonal viruses, rendering these drugs to be of marginal utility in the treatment modality. Worldwide, virtually all 2009 H1N1 and seasonal H3N2 strains are resistant to the adamantanes (rimantadine and amantadine), and the majority of seasonal H1N1 strains are resistant to oseltamivir, the most widely prescribed neuraminidase inhibitor (NAI). To address the need for more effective therapy, we evaluated the in vitro activity of a triple combination antiviral drug (TCAD) regimen composed of drugs with different mechanisms of action against drug-resistant seasonal and 2009 H1N1 influenza viruses. Amantadine, ribavirin, and oseltamivir, alone and in combination, were tested against amantadine- and oseltamivir-resistant influenza A viruses using an in vitro infection model in MDCK cells. Our data show that the triple combination was highly synergistic against drug-resistant viruses, and the synergy of the triple combination was significantly greater than the synergy of any double combination tested (P<0.05), including the combination of two NAIs. Surprisingly, amantadine and oseltamivir contributed to the antiviral activity of the TCAD regimen against amantadine- and oseltamivir-resistant viruses, respectively, at concentrations where they had no activity as single agents, and at concentrations that were clinically achievable. Our data demonstrate that the TCAD regimen composed of amantadine, ribavirin, and oseltamivir is highly synergistic against resistant viruses, including 2009 H1N1. The TCAD regimen overcomes baseline drug resistance to both classes of approved influenza antivirals, and thus may represent a highly active antiviral therapy for seasonal and pandemic influenza.

Project description:BackgroundSatralizumab, a humanised monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin-6 receptor, reduced the risk of relapse in patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) when added to immunosuppressant therapy. This study assessed the safety and efficacy of satralizumab monotherapy in patients with the disorder.MethodsIn this phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial, we enrolled adults aged 18-74 years with aquaporin-4 antibody seropositive or seronegative NMOSD at 44 investigational sites in 13 countries. Eligible participants had experienced at least one documented NMOSD attack or relapse in the past 12 months and had a score of 6·5 or less on the Expanded Disability Status Scale. Exclusion criteria included clinical relapse 30 days or fewer before baseline. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive satralizumab 120 mg or visually matched placebo subcutaneously at weeks 0, 2, 4, and every 4 weeks thereafter. Taking immunosuppressants concomitantly was prohibited. The primary endpoint was time to the first protocol-defined relapse, based on the intention-to-treat population and analysed with stratification for two randomisation factors (previous therapy for prevention of attacks and nature of the most recent attack). Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of satralizumab or placebo. The double-blind phase was due to last until 44 protocol-defined relapses occurred or 1·5 years after random assignment of the last patient enrolled, whichever occurred first; participants could enter an open-label phase after the occurrence of a protocol-defined relapse or at the end of the double-blind phase. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02073279.Findings95 (57%) of 168 screened participants were randomly assigned to treatment (63 to satralizumab; 32 to placebo) between Aug 5, 2014, and April 2, 2017. Protocol-defined relapses occurred in 19 (30%) patients receiving satralizumab and 16 (50%) receiving placebo (hazard ratio 0·45, 95% CI 0·23-0·89; p=0·018). 473·9 adverse events per 100 patient-years occurred in the satralizumab group, as did 495·2 per 100 patient-years in the placebo group; the incidence of serious adverse events and adverse events leading to withdrawal was similar between groups.InterpretationSatralizumab monotherapy reduced the rate of NMOSD relapse compared with placebo in the overall trial population, with a favourable safety profile. The patient population included a ratio of aquaporin-4 antibody seropositive and seronegative patients that was reflective of clinical practice. Satralizumab has the potential to become a valuable treatment option for patients with NMOSD.FundingChugai Pharmaceutical (Roche).

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Psoriasis vulgaris is a common skin disease that is characterised by persistent localised erythematous scaly plaques. Yinxieling is a Chinese herbal formula for psoriasis that has been used for more than 20 years in China. To facilitate application, PSORI-CM01 was developed based on the optimisation and simplification of Yinxieling tablets performed in a previous study and in clinical practice. However, the scientific evidence regarding whether PSORI-CM01 is more effective for psoriasis than the original Yinxieling remains insufficient. Therefore, we designed a randomised clinical trial to investigate the effect, safety and cost-effectiveness of PSORI-CM01 granules compared with those of Yinxieling tablets for the treatment of patients with psoriasis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This ongoing study is a two-arm parallel, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy clinical trial. Five hundred and fifty-six participants with psoriasis will be recruited and then randomly allocated into two groups in a 1:1 ratio. Participants in PSORI-CM01 group will receive a 5.5?g granule of PSORI-CM01 two times daily and five placebo tablets three times daily for 12 weeks. The participants in the Yinxieling group will receive five Yinxieling tablets three times daily and a placebo granule two times daily for 12 weeks. The primary outcome is the reduction of the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index. The secondary outcomes include relapse rate, Visual Analogue Scale scores, body surface area and the Dermatology Life Quality Index. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed from a health and community care provider perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This research protocol had been reviewed and approved by the institutional review boards of three trial centres (Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine (B2014-026-01), Affiliated Hospital of Tianjin Chinese Medicine Academy (2014-KY-001) and Third Hospital of Hangzhou (B2014-026-01)). The findings will be disseminated to the public through conference presentations and open-access journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-TRC-14005185); Pre-results.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To compare the efficacy and toxicity of cyclosporin A (CsA) monotherapy with CsA plus methotrexate (MTX) combination therapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). PATIENTS AND METHODS:120 patients with active RA, rheumatoid factor positive and/or erosive, were randomly allocated to receive CsA with MTX (n=60) or CsA with placebo (n=60). Treatment with CsA was started in all patients at 2.5 mg/kg/day and increased to a maximum of 5 mg/kg/day in 16 weeks. MTX was started at 7.5 mg/week and increased to a maximal dose of 15 mg/week at week 16. Primary outcomes were clinical remission (Pinals criteria) and radiological damage (Larsen score), at week 48. RESULTS:Treatment was discontinued prematurely in 27 patients in the monotherapy group (21 because of inefficacy, and six because of toxicity) and in 26 patients in the combination therapy group (14 and 12, respectively). At week 48, clinical remission was achieved in four patients in the monotherapy group and in six patients in the combination therapy group (p=0.5). The median Larsen score increased to 10 (25th, 75th centiles: 3.5; 13.3) points in the monotherapy group and to 4 (1.0; 10.5) points in the combination therapy group (p=0.004). 28/60 (47%) of patients in the monotherapy group v 34/60 (57%) of patients in the combination therapy group had reached an American college of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response (p=0.36) at week 48; 15/60 (25%) v 29/60 (48%) of patients had reached an ACR50 response (p=0.013); and 7 (12%) v 12 (20%) of patients had reached an ACR70 response (p=0.11). Their was a tendency towards more toxicity in the combination therapy group. CONCLUSIONS:In patients with early RA, neither CsA plus MTX combination therapy nor CsA monotherapy is very effective in inducing clinical remission. Combination therapy is probably better at improving clinical disease activity, and definitely better at slowing radiological progression. Combination therapy should still be compared with methotrexate monotherapy.

Project description:A systematic assessment of potential disease-modifying compounds for Parkinson's disease concluded that pioglitazone could hold promise for the treatment of patients with this disease. We assessed the effect of pioglitazone on the progression of Parkinson's disease in a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, futility clinical trial.Participants with the diagnosis of early Parkinson's disease on a stable regimen of 1 mg/day rasagiline or 10 mg/day selegiline were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 15 mg/day pioglitazone, 45 mg/day pioglitazone, or placebo. Investigators were masked to the treatment assignment. Only the statistical centre and the central pharmacy knew the treatment name associated with the randomisation number. The primary outcome was the change in the total Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score between the baseline and 44 weeks, analysed by intention to treat. The primary null hypothesis for each dose group was that the mean change in UPDRS was 3 points less than the mean change in the placebo group. The alternative hypothesis (of futility) was that pioglitazone is not meaningfully different from placebo. We rejected the null if there was significant evidence of futility at the one-sided alpha level of 0·10. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01280123.210 patients from 35 sites in the USA were enrolled between May 10, 2011, and July 31, 2013. The primary analysis included 72 patients in the 15 mg group, 67 in the 45 mg group, and 71 in the placebo group. The mean total UPDRS change at 44 weeks was 4·42 (95% CI 2·55-6·28) for 15 mg pioglitazone, 5·13 (95% CI 3·17-7·08) for 45 mg pioglitazone, and 6·25 (95% CI 4·35-8·15) for placebo (higher change scores are worse). The mean difference between the 15 mg and placebo groups was -1·83 (80% CI -3·56 to -0·10) and the null hypothesis could not be rejected (p=0·19). The mean difference between the 45 mg and placebo groups was -1·12 (80% CI -2·93 to 0·69) and the null hypothesis was rejected in favour of futility (p=0·09). Planned sensitivity analyses of the primary outcome, using last value carried forward (LVCF) to handle missing data and using the completers' only sample, suggested that the 15 mg dose is also futile (p=0·09 for LVCF, p=0·09 for completers) but failed to reject the null hypothesis for the 45 mg dose (p=0·12 for LVCF, p=0·19 for completers). Six serious adverse events occurred in the 15 mg group, nine in the 45 mg group, and three in the placebo group; none were thought to be definitely or probably related to the study interventions.These findings suggest that pioglitazone at the doses studied here is unlikely to modify progression in early Parkinson's disease. Further study of pioglitazone in a larger trial in patients with Parkinson's disease is not recommended.National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Project description:Introduction:Resistant Gram-positive organisms, such as methicillin-resistant staphylococci, account for a significant proportion of infections following joint replacement surgery. Current surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis guidelines recommend the use of first-generation or second-generation cephalosporin antibiotics, such as cefazolin. Cefazolin, however, does not prevent infections due to these resistant organisms; therefore, new prevention strategies need to be examined. One proposed strategy is to combine a glycopeptide antibiotic with cefazolin for prophylaxis. The clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of this combination therapy compared with usual therapy, however, have not been established.Methods and analysis:This randomised, double-blind, parallel, superiority, placebo-controlled, phase 4 trial will compare the incidence of all surgical site infections (SSIs) including superficial, deep and organ/space (prosthetic joint) infections, safety and cost-effectiveness of surgical prophylaxis with cefazolin plus vancomycin to that with cefazolin plus placebo. The study will be performed in patients undergoing joint replacement surgery. In the microbiological sub-studies, we will examine the incidence of SSIs in participants with preoperative staphylococci colonisation (Sub-Study 1) and incidence of VRE acquisition (Sub-Study 2). The trial will recruit 4450 participants over a 4-year period across 13 orthopaedic centres in Australia. The primary outcome is the incidence of SSI at 90 days post index surgery. Secondary outcomes include the incidence of SSI according to joint and microorganism and other healthcare associated infections. Safety endpoints include the incidence of acute kidney injury, hypersensitivity reactions and all-cause mortality. The primary and secondary analysis will be a modified intention-to-treat analysis consisting of all randomised participants who undergo eligible surgery. We will also perform a per-protocol analysis.Ethics and dissemination:The study protocol was reviewed and approved by The Alfred Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/18/Alfred/102) on 9 July 2018. Study findings will be disseminated in the printed media, and learnt forums.Trial registration number:ACTRN12618000642280.

Dataset Information

Oseltamivir, amantadine, and ribavirin combination antiviral therapy versus oseltamivir monotherapy for the treatment of influenza: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 2 trial.

Publications

Oseltamivir, amantadine, and ribavirin combination antiviral therapy versus oseltamivir monotherapy for the treatment of influenza: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 2 trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets