Dataset Information

Safety, Resistance, and Efficacy Results from a Phase IIIb Study of Conventional- and Double-Dose Oseltamivir Regimens for Treatment of Influenza in Immunocompromised Patients.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Immunocompromised patients infected with influenza exhibit prolonged viral shedding and higher risk of resistance. Optimized treatment strategies are needed to reduce the risk of antiviral resistance. This phase IIIb, randomized, double-blind study (NCT00545532) evaluated conventional-dose or double-dose oseltamivir for the treatment of influenza in immunocompromised patients.

Methods

Patients with primary or secondary immunodeficiency and influenza infection were randomized 1:1 to receive conventional-dose oseltamivir (75 mg adolescents/adults [≥ 13 years]; 30-75 mg by body weight in children [1-12 years]) or double-dose oseltamivir (150 or 60-150 mg, respectively), twice daily for an extended period of 10 days. Nasal/throat swabs were taken for virology assessments at all study visits. Co-primary endpoints were safety/tolerability and viral resistance. Secondary endpoints included time to symptom alleviation (TTSA) and time to cessation of viral shedding (TTCVS).

Results

Of 228 patients enrolled between February 2008 and May 2017, 215 (199 adults) were evaluable for safety, 167 (151 adults) for efficacy, and 152 (138 adults) for resistance. Fewer patients experienced an adverse event (AE) in the conventional-dose group (50.5%) versus the double-dose group (59.1%). The most frequently reported AEs were nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and headache. Fifteen patients had post-baseline resistance, more commonly in the conventional-dose group (n = 12) than in the double-dose group (n = 3). In adults, median TTSA was similar between arms, while median TTCVS was longer with conventional dosing.

Conclusions

Oseltamivir was well tolerated, with a trend toward better safety/tolerability for conventional dosing versus double dosing. Resistance rates were higher with conventional dosing in this immunocompromised patient population.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00545532.

Funding

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.

SUBMITTER: Mitha E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6856247 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the validity of recommendations in treatment guidelines to use higher than approved doses of oseltamivir in patients with severe influenza.DesignDouble blind randomised trial.SettingThirteen hospitals in Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.ParticipantsPatients aged ≥ 1 year admitted to hospital with confirmed severe influenza.InterventionsOral oseltamivir at double dose (150 mg twice a day/paediatric equivalent) versus standard dose (75 mg twice a day/paediatric equivalent).Main outcome measureViral status according to reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for influenza RNA in nasal and throat swabs on day five.ResultsOf 326 patients (including 246 (75.5%) children aged <15), 165 and 161 were randomised to double or standard dose oseltamivir, respectively. Of these, 260 (79.8%) were infected with influenza virus A (133 (40.8%) with A/H3N2, 72 (22.1%) with A/H1N1-pdm09, 38 (11.7%) with seasonal A/H1N1, 17 (5.2%) with A/H5N1) and 53 (16.2%) with influenza virus B. A further 3.9% (13) were false positive by rapid antigen test (negative by RT-PCR and no rise in convalescent haemagglutination inhibition titers). Similar proportions of patients were negative for RT-PCR on day five of treatment: 115/159 (72.3%, 95% confidence interval 64.9% to 78.7%) double dose recipients versus 105/154 (68.2%, 60.5% to 75.0%) standard dose recipients; difference 4.2% (-5.9 to 14.2); P=0.42. No differences were found in clearance of virus in subgroup analyses by virus type/subtype, age, and duration of illness before randomisation. Mortality was similar: 12/165 (7.3%, 4.2% to 12.3%) in double dose recipients versus 9/161 (5.6%, 3.0% to 10.3%) in standard dose recipients. No differences were found between double and standard dose arms in median days on supplemental oxygen (3 (interquartile range 2-5) v 3.5 (2-7)), in intensive care (4.5 (3-6) v 5 (2-11), and on mechanical ventilation (2.5 (1-16) v 8 (1-16)), respectively. No important differences in tolerability were found.ConclusionsThere were no virological or clinical advantages with double dose oseltamivir compared with standard dose in patients with severe influenza admitted to hospital.RegistrationClinical Trials NCT00298233.