Oseltamivir effectiveness in seasonal influenza patients taking symptomatic therapy: retrospective analysis of RCT data.

AIMS: The effectiveness of oseltamivir to improve seasonal influenza symptoms in clinical practice was analyzed using pooled data from patients who were also taking analgesics and other over-the-counter (OTC) medications. METHODS: Data were pooled from 1,709 patients aged 13 - 64 years with confirmed seasonal influenza who enrolled in six randomized, placebo-controlled trials of oseltamivir (75 mg b.i.d. for 5 days) and took OTC analgesics (+/- other medications). Rates of improvement of seven symptoms, two functional measures (sleep quality and ability to undertake usual activities) and fever (body temperature) were calculated between Days 1 and 6 of illness. Time to reach defined tolerability thresholds was compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Two subgroup analyses were performed in patients taking cough and cold remedies (n = 635) and antibiotics (n = 175) in addition to analgesics. RESULTS: Six symptoms and both functional measures improved faster with oseltamivir than placebo, including nasal congestion (difference in rate, 19.3%), cough (34.1%), sleep quality (13.7%) and ability to perform usual activities (12.0%). Results in the Analgesics + cough/cold subgroup analysis were similar. In the Analgesics + antibiotics subgroup, three symptoms and both functional measures improved faster with oseltamivir. In all three analyses, median time to reach tolerability thresholds for all measures was faster in oseltamivir patients than placebo patients. CONCLUSIONS: Oseltamivir treatment of patients with seasonal influenza already receiving OTC medications produced a faster reduction in severity of most symptoms and a quicker return to ability to perform normal activities compared with patients who took OTC medications and placebo.

Validation of self-swab for virologic confirmation of influenza virus infections in a community setting.

Few studies have investigated the validity of self-collected nose and throat swabs for influenza confirmation in community settings. We followed outpatients with confirmed influenza with sequential measurement of viral loads and applied log-linear regression models to the viral shedding patterns. Among 176 outpatients with confirmed influenza, the detection of virus and quantitative viral loads obtained from self-swabs was consistent with statistical predictions based on earlier and later measurements, suggesting that self-collected nose and throat swabs can be a valid alternative for virologic confirmation of influenza A or B infection in a community setting.

Oseltamivir in seasonal influenza: cumulative experience in low- and high-risk patients.

Seasonal influenza viruses cause annual disease epidemics that affect individuals at low and high risk for secondary illnesses. Influenza vaccines are widely used in high-risk patients to prevent infection, but the protection afforded varies by population; uptake is also limited in some groups. Antiviral drugs for influenza are now readily available. Oseltamivir is the most widely used antiviral for the treatment and prophylaxis of seasonal influenza, and its efficacy and safety are now well established in a variety of populations. In addition to decreasing the severity and duration of the symptoms of influenza, clinical and epidemiological studies demonstrate that oseltamivir significantly reduces the frequency of secondary illnesses and exacerbation of underlying conditions; survival is also significantly improved in seriously ill patients who are hospitalized with severe influenza. Resistant viruses are isolated with a low frequency during oseltamivir treatment (0.33% in adults and 4.0% in children among almost 2000 oseltamivir-treated patients enrolled onto Roche-sponsored clinical trials of oseltamivir treatment during the oseltamivir development programme). However, an oseltamivir-resistant influenza A (H1N1) virus emerged in Europe during the 2007-08 season and circulated in the southern and northern hemispheres in 2008-09. No link with oseltamivir usage could be detected, and the clinical impact of these viruses was limited. Oseltamivir-susceptible pandemic (H1N1) 2009 viruses now predominate in many countries. Oseltamivir is generally well tolerated, with a similar adverse event profile to placebo.

Assessment of neuropsychiatric adverse events in influenza patients treated with oseltamivir: a comprehensive review.

After reports from Japan of neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPAEs) in children taking oseltamivir phosphate (hereafter referred to as oseltamivir [Tamiflu; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland]) during and after the 2004--5 influenza season, Roche explored possible reasons for the increase in reporting rate and presented regular updates to the US FDA and other regulatory authorities. This review summarizes the results of a comprehensive assessment of the company's own preclinical and clinical studies, post-marketing spontaneous adverse event reporting, epidemiological investigations utilizing health claims and medical records databases and an extensive review of the literature, with the aim of answering the following questions: (i) what the types and rates of neuropsychiatric abnormalities reported in patients with influenza are, and whether these differ in patients who have received oseltamivir compared with those who have not; (ii) what levels of oseltamivir and its active metabolite, oseltamivir carboxylate are achieved in the CNS; (iii) whether oseltamivir and oseltamivir carboxylate have pharmacological activity in the CNS; and (iv) whether there are genetic differences between Japanese and Caucasian patients that result in different levels of oseltamivir and/or oseltamivir carboxylate in the CNS, differences in their metabolism or differences in their pharmacological activity in the CNS. In total, 3051 spontaneous reports of NPAEs were received by Roche, involving 2466 patients who received oseltamivir between 1999 and 15 September 2007; 2772 (90.9%) events originated from Japan, 190 (6.2%) from the US and 89 (2.9%) from other countries. During this period, oseltamivir was prescribed to around 48 million people worldwide. Crude NPAE reporting rates (per 1,000,000 prescriptions) in children (aged < or =16 years) and adults, respectively, were 99 and 28 events in Japan and 19 and 8 in the US. NPAEs were more commonly reported in children (2218 events in 1808 children aged < or =16 years vs 833 in 658 adults) and generally occurred within 48 hours of the onset of influenza illness and initiation of treatment. After categorizing the reported events according to International Classification of Diseases (9th edition) codes, abnormal behaviour (1160 events, 38.0%) and delusions/perceptual disturbances (661 events, 21.7%) were the largest categories of events, and delirium or delirium-like events (as defined by the American Psychiatric Association) were very common in most categories. No difference in NPAE reporting rates between oseltamivir and placebo was found in phase III treatment studies (0.5% vs 0.6%). Analyses of US healthcare claims databases showed the risk of NPAEs in oseltamivir-treated patients (n = 159,386) was no higher than those not receiving antivirals (n = 159,386). Analysis of medical records in the UK General Practice Research Database showed that the adjusted relative risk of NPAEs in influenza patients was significantly higher (1.75-fold) than in the general population. Based on literature reports, NPAEs in Japanese and Taiwanese children with influenza have occurred before the initiation of oseltamivir treatment; events were also similar to those occurring after the initiation of oseltamivir therapy. No clinically relevant differences in plasma pharmacokinetics of oseltamivir and its active metabolite oseltamivir carboxylate were noted between Japanese and Caucasian adults or children. Penetration into the CNS of both oseltamivir and oseltamivir carboxylate was low in Japanese and Caucasian adults (cerebrospinal fluid/plasma maximum concentration and area under the plasma concentration-time curve ratios of approximately 0.03), and the capacity for converting oseltamivir to oseltamivir carboxylate in rat and human brains was low. In animal autoradiography and pharmacokinetic studies, brain : plasma radioactivity ratios were generally 20% or lower. Animal studies showed no specific CNS/behavioural effects after administration of doses corresponding to > or =100 times the clinical dose. Oseltamivir or oseltamivir carboxylate did not interact with human neuraminidases or with 155 known molecular targets in radioligand binding and functional assays. A review of the information published to date on functional variations of genes relevant to oseltamivir pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics and simulated gene knock-out scenarios did not identify any plausible genetic explanations for the observed NPAEs. The available data do not suggest that the incidence of NPAEs in influenza patients receiving oseltamivir is higher than in those who do not, and no mechanism by which oseltamivir or oseltamivir carboxylate could cause or worsen such events could be identified.

Oral oseltamivir improves pulmonary function and reduces exacerbation frequency for influenza-infected children with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Among asthmatic children, influenza is associated with increased hospitalizations. Although vaccination is safe and effective among asthmatic children, its protective efficacy varies and uptake rates can be low. In comparison, oseltamivir (Tamiflu) is effective against all influenza strains and can reduce the severity and duration of influenza among adults and children. This study determined the effects of oseltamivir among influenza-infected children with asthma. METHODS: Asthmatic children (6-12 years of age) were randomized to receive oseltamivir (2 mg/kg) or placebo twice daily, as a syrup. The primary efficacy endpoint was the time to freedom from illness. Secondary endpoints included the area under the symptom score-hour curve, the proportion of patients with asthma exacerbations and changes in forced expiratory volume at 1 second during the dosing period. Analysis was performed for both the intent-to-treat infected (n = 179) and per protocol (n = 162) populations. RESULTS: The primary endpoint for this study was not met. Oseltamivir tended to reduce the time to freedom from illness in the intent-to-treat infected population (10.4 hours, 8%; P = 0.5420), the per protocol population (24.3 hours, 17%; P = 0.1607) and patients who started treatment <24 hours after symptom onset (39.8 hours, 25%; P = 0.0780). However, an improvement in pulmonary function was observed. The improvement in forced expiratory volume at 1 second was significantly greater among oseltamivir-treated patients (10.8% versus 4.7%; P = 0.0148). Oseltamivir-treated patients also experienced fewer asthma exacerbations up to day 7 (68% versus 51%; P = 0.031). Oseltamivir was safe and well-tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Oseltamivir is safe and well-tolerated among asthmatic children, may reduce symptom duration and helps improve lung function and reduce asthma exacerbations during influenza infection.

Safety and pharmacology of oseltamivir in clinical use.

Oseltamivir is a novel agent approved for the treatment and prevention of influenza infection and illnesses in adults and children. Assessment of data from the clinical trial programme, a US health insurance database study and postmarketing surveillance allowed a comprehensive review of the safety of oseltamivir in clinical use in subjects >1 year of age. Oseltamivir has been studied over the course of a 5-year development programme in >11000 subjects from North America, Europe and the Southern Hemisphere, including otherwise healthy adults, approximately 500 elderly/high-risk subjects, and children (>1000) aged 1-12 years. Safety evaluations included treatment-emergent adverse events, hospitalisations and deaths, as well as haematological and biochemical laboratory safety tests. The data reveals that oseltamivir has simple, uncomplicated pharmacology and lacks potential for drug-drug interactions. Electrocardiogram parameters, including corrected QT interval, were unaffected by oseltamivir even at high doses. Postmarketing studies confirmed that transient gastrointestinal disturbance is the major adverse effect of oseltamivir and that this can be reduced by taking oseltamivir after a light snack. On treatment serious adverse events were reported in 1.3% of oseltamivir 75mg twice daily, 0.7% of oseltamivir 150 mg twice daily and 1.2% of placebo recipients, respectively, in the clinical trial programme. Postmarketing, it is estimated that, to date, over 4 million oseltamivir prescriptions have been dispensed worldwide. Approximately 2300 spontaneous reports were received by the manufacturer over the three winter seasons of use. As these events are reported infrequently and from an unknown number of users, it is not possible to definitively assess causality or frequency of reported events. Most reports were of gastrointestinal and skin reactions. However, a clear association between the skin reactions and oseltamivir has not been established. A large study of insurance records, which permitted the assessment of the relative risk of medical events treated in the month following prescription of oseltamivir in general use, showed no evidence of increased risk of cardiac, neuropsychiatric or respiratory events for those receiving oseltamivir compared with those who did not. To conclude, no important safety concerns have evolved which might limit the suitability of oseltamivir for the treatment and prevention of influenza in all patient populations.

Safety and tolerability of a 6-week course of oseltamivir prophylaxis for seasonal influenza in children.

In an open-label study, 49 children aged 1-12 years received oseltamivir (30-75 mg once daily depending on bodyweight) for 6 weeks for influenza prophylaxis. Seventeen participants reported 22 adverse events (AEs); in three participants, AEs were considered probably drug related (nausea or vomiting). No serious AEs were reported. The tolerability profile was similar to pooled safety data from treatment studies (duration of 5 days) in children.

Efficacy and safety of oral oseltamivir for influenza prophylaxis in transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) and solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are at high risk for severe influenza and its complications, and may not be adequately protected by vaccination. METHODS: Liver, kidney, or liver-kidney transplant or allogeneic HSCT recipients aged ≥1 year were randomized to oseltamivir (75 mg once daily for those ≥13 years or weight-based dosing for children 1-12 years) or placebo for 12 weeks during periods of local influenza circulation. Patients were assessed for influenza infection via daily diary, every-other-week culture and PCR, and baseline and end-of-treatment serology. RESULTS: A total of 477 subjects were enrolled (239 oseltamivir and 238 placebo); most were adults (96%) and SOT recipients (81%). In the intent-to-treat population, the frequency of laboratory-confirmed clinical influenza (culture positive and/or >4-fold increase in haemagglutinin antibody inhibition [primary end point]) was similar in the oseltamivir and placebo groups (2.1% [5/237] and 2.9% [7/238]). Incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza was significantly reduced in the oseltamivir group versus placebo when determined by reverse transcriptase-PCR (1.7% [4/237] versus 8.4% [20/238]; 95% CI 2.8, 11.1) or viral culture (<1% [1/237] versus 3.8% [9/238]; 95% CI 0.7, 6.6), giving protective efficacies of 79.9 and 88.8%, respectively. Serious adverse events (oseltamivir 8% and placebo 10%) and adverse events (oseltamivir 55% and placebo 58%) were reported in both arms with a similar frequency. One illness due to oseltamivir-resistant A/H1N1 virus was detected in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Oseltamivir prophylaxis is generally well-tolerated and may reduce culture- or PCR-confirmed influenza incidence in transplant recipients.

Post-marketing assessment of neuropsychiatric adverse events in influenza patients treated with oseltamivir: an updated review.

A 2008 review by our group concluded that the risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPAEs) in influenza patients was not increased by oseltamivir exposure, and did not identify any mechanism by which oseltamivir or its metabolites could cause or worsen such events. The current article reviews new information on this topic. Between September 16, 2007 and May 15, 2010, 1,805 spontaneously-reported NPAEs were identified in 1,330 patients receiving oseltamivir: 767 (42.5%) from Japan, 296 (16.4%) from the USA, and 742 (41.1%) from other countries. NPAEs were more common in children: 1,072 (59.4%) events were in those aged ≤16 years. NPAEs often occurred within 48 h of treatment initiation (953 events; 52.8%). Nearly half of the events were serious in nature (838; 46.4%). The three largest categories of events were abnormal behavior (457 events, 25.3%), miscellaneous psychiatric events (370; 20.5%), and delusions/perceptual disturbances (316 events, 17.5%). A total of 1,545 events (85.6%) in eight different categories were considered to be delirium or delirium-like. Twenty-eight suicide-related events were reported. A US healthcare claims database analysis showed that the risk of NPAEs in 7,798 oseltamivir-treated patients was no higher than that in 10,411 patients not on antivirals, but a study on oseltamivir and abnormal behavior in Japan was less conclusive. NPAE frequency in oseltamivir-exposed Japanese and Taiwanese children with influenza was the same as in unexposed children. New analysis of the UK General Practice Research Database showed that the relative adjusted risk of NPAEs in influenza patients was 2.18-times higher than in the general population. Other epidemiology studies report frequent occurrence of encephalitis and similar disorders in influenza patients independently of oseltamivir exposure. The new data support the findings of the original assessment. Evidence suggests that influenza-related encephalopathies are caused by influenza-induced inflammatory responses, but more work is needed to confirm the underlying mechanisms.

Oseltamivir in seasonal, pandemic, and avian influenza: a comprehensive review of 10-years clinical experience.

Oseltamivir (Tamiflu®; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland) is an orally administered antiviral for the treatment and prevention of influenza A and B infections that is registered in more than 100 countries worldwide. More than 83 million patients have been exposed to the product since its introduction. Oseltamivir is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) for use in the clinical management of pandemic and seasonal influenza of varying severity, and as the primary antiviral agent for treatment of avian H5N1 influenza infection in humans. This article is a nonsystematic review of the experience gained from the first 10 years of using oseltamivir for influenza infections since its launch in early 2000, emphasizing recent advances in our understanding of the product and its clinical utility in five main areas. The article reviews the pharmacokinetics of oseltamivir and its active metabolite, oseltamivir carboxylate, including information on special populations such as children and elderly adults, and the co-administration of oseltamivir with other agents. This is followed by a summary of data on the effectiveness of oseltamivir treatment and prophylaxis in patients with all types of influenza, including pandemic (H1N1) 2009 and avian H5N1 influenza. The implications of changes in susceptibility of circulating influenza viruses to oseltamivir and other antiviral agents are also described, as is the emergence of antiviral resistance during and after the 2009 pandemic. The fourth main section deals with the safety profile of oseltamivir in standard and special patient populations, and reviews spontaneously reported adverse event data from the pandemic and pre-pandemic periods and the topical issue of neuropsychiatric adverse events. Finally, the article considers the pharmacoeconomics of oseltamivir in comparison with vaccination and usual care regimens, and as a component of pandemic influenza mitigation strategies.

Impact of oseltamivir treatment on the incidence and course of acute otitis media in children with influenza.

OBJECTIVE: Acute otitis media (AOM) is the most common complication of pediatric influenza, and imposes a substantial health care burden. We examined the influence of oseltamivir treatment on the incidence and course of AOM in children with influenza. METHODS: In the original study, 695 children 1-12 years who presented within 48h of the onset of influenza-like symptoms were randomized to oseltamivir (2mg/kg) or placebo given twice daily for 5 days. AOM was assessed at enrollment and days 3, 6 (+/-1), 10 (+/-2) and 28 (+/-7). AOM was clinically diagnosed by the participating primary care provider, supported by tympanometry when possible. We performed a retrospective analysis of those participants with laboratory-confirmed influenza (LCI). Assessments included the incidence and clinical course of new AOM cases. RESULTS: In all, 452 children had LCI; 217 received oseltamivir and 235 placebo. AOM was diagnosed on or after study day 3 at a significantly lower frequency in the oseltamivir versus placebo group (12.4% versus 21.7%; relative risk [RR]: 0.57 [95% CI: 0.37, 0.88], respectively). Treatment effects were greatest for children 1-2 years (RR=0.42 [95% CI: 0.20, 0.89]) and 3-5 years (RR=0.45 [95% CI: 0.19, 1.04]), in whom the incidence of AOM was highest. CONCLUSIONS: Oseltamivir treatment significantly reduces the emergence of new AOM infections in children with LCI; effects are most pronounced in those <5 years. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: WV15758.

Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and its potential for use in the event of an influenza pandemic.

Recent cross species transmission of avian influenza has highlighted the threat of pandemic influenza. Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) has been shown to be effective in the treatment and prevention of epidemic influenza infection in adults, adolescents and children (> or = 1 year). Although oseltamivir has not been approved for prophylactic use in children, it has been shown to be effective. Oseltamivir is also active against avian influenza virus strains. Evidence suggests that lower doses or shorter durations of treatment/chemoprophylaxis other than those approved may not be effective and may contribute to emergence of viral resistance. Safety data from dose ranging studies show that 5 day courses of 150 mg twice daily for treatment and 6 week courses of 75 mg twice daily for prophylaxis were as well tolerated as the approved dose regimens. The use of oseltamivir in a pandemic is influenced by the goals of the pandemic plan developed by the responsible Government and Health Authority. To optimize use of antiviral medications, processes will be needed to collect, collate and report outcome data from treated patients and/or from use for chemoprophylaxis of pandemic influenza during the first-wave outbreaks. If oseltamivir is included in a national or regional pandemic plan, stockpiling of the material, either in the form of capsules or the bulk active pharmaceutical ingredient will be necessary. In the absence of a stockpile, there is no guarantee that an adequate supply of oseltamivir will be available.

Viral respiratory infection in schoolchildren: effects on middle ear pressure.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of uncomplicated viral respiratory infections (colds) on middle ear pressure in healthy school-aged children. METHODS: Children (ages 2-12) with normal tympanograms before onset of illness had bilateral tympanometry daily except weekends for 2 weeks after the onset of a cold. Nasopharyngeal secretion obtained at onset of illness was cultured for bacterial pathogens of otitis media using selective agars and tested for rhinovirus, coronavirus, respiratory syncytial virus, influenza A and B, and parainfluenza 1-3 by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction technology. Tympanometry was designated as abnormal with peak pressure of < or =-100 daPa or > or =50 daPa and/or a compliance peak of < 0.2 cm(3). RESULTS: Eighty-six colds were studied, 82 in schoolchildren (5-12 years old) and 4 in 2- to 3-year-olds. Abnormal negative middle ear pressure occurred at least once during the 2 weeks after onset in 57 (66%) of the 86 colds. Tympanometry was abnormal in the first week after onset in 50 (88%) of the 57 colds and was abnormal on a single day in 17 (30%) of the 57. The middle ear pressure abnormalities were intermittent and shifted from one ear to the other ear from day to day. Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction was positive for a respiratory virus in 56 (65%) of the 86 illnesses. Rhinovirus was found in 48% and respiratory syncytial virus in 14%. Pathogenic bacteria (Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, or Moraxella catarrhalis) were detected in nasopharyngeal secretion in 29 (34%) of the 86 colds; the bacteria were in high titer (> or =10(3) cfu/mL) in 26 of the 29 positive specimens. None developed illness that required a visit to a physician. Age, detection of a respiratory virus, and presence of bacterial pathogen in the nasopharyngeal secretion had a negligible effect on the occurrence of abnormal tympanometry. Occurrence of negative middle ear pressure in winter-spring colds was significantly greater than in fall colds for unexplained reasons. CONCLUSIONS: Transient negative middle ear pressure occurred in two thirds of uncomplicated colds in healthy children. This negative pressure, which may facilitate secondary viral or bacterial otitis media, seems to result from viral infection of the nasopharynx and distal tube causing bilateral eustachian tube dysfunction. Tympanometry provides an objective measure of the potential beneficial effects of investigational treatments on the risk of eustachian tube dysfunction/otitis media.

Management of influenza in households: a prospective, randomized comparison of oseltamivir treatment with or without postexposure prophylaxis.

We determined the efficacy of postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) and treatment of ill index cases with oseltamivir, in an attempt to prevent influenza transmission in households, in a study conducted in 277 households with 298 index cases (62% with laboratory-confirmed influenza) and 812 contacts aged > or =1 year. Contacts were randomized by household to receive treatment (5 days; n=402), if illness developed, or PEP for 10 days (n=410), and the number of households with at least 1 contact developing laboratory-confirmed influenza was measured. PEP provided a protective efficacy of 58.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.6%-79.6%; P=.0114) for households against proven influenza and 68.0% (95% CI, 34.9%-84.2%; P=.0017) for individual contacts, compared with treatment of index cases alone. No oseltamivir-resistant variants were detected in treated index cases or contacts. PEP of household contacts of those with influenza reduces the secondary spread of influenza in families when the initial household case is treated.