Efficacy and Safety of Nitazoxanide in Addition to Standard of Care for the Treatment of Severe Acute Respiratory Illness.

BACKGROUND: Effective therapeutics for respiratory viruses are needed. Early data suggest that nitazoxanide (NTZ) may be beneficial for treating acute respiratory viral illness. METHODS: From March 2014 through March 2017, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in 260 participants ≥1 year old hospitalized with influenza-like illness at 6 hospitals in Mexico. Participants were randomized 1:1 to NTZ (age ≥12 years, 600 mg twice daily; age 4-11 years and 1-3 years, 200 or 100 mg twice daily, respectively) or placebo for 5 days in addition to standard of care. The primary endpoint was time from first dose to hospital discharge. Influenza reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction and Respifinder 22 multiplex test were used for virus detection. RESULTS: Of 260 participants enrolled, 257 were randomized and took at least 1 dose of study treatment (intention-to-treat population): 130 in the NTZ group and 127 in the placebo group. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the median duration of hospitalization was 6.5 (interquartile range [IQR], 4.0-9.0) days in the NTZ group vs 7.0 (IQR, 4.0-9.0) days in the placebo group (P = .56). Duration of hospitalization between the 2 treatments was similar in children (P = .29) and adults (P = .62), influenza A and B (P = .32), and other respiratory viruses. Seven (5.4%) and 6 (4.7%) participants in the NTZ and placebo groups, respectively, reported serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with NTZ did not reduce the duration of hospital stay in severe influenza-like illness. Further analyses based on age and evaluations by virus did not reveal any subgroups that appeared to benefit from NTZ. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02057757.

Reliability, Validity, and Responsiveness of InFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO©) Scores in Influenza-Positive Patients.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of InFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO©) scores for quantifying the presence and severity of influenza symptoms. METHODS: An observational prospective cohort study of adults (≥18 years) with influenza-like illness in the United States, the United Kingdom, Mexico, and South America was conducted. Participants completed the 37-item draft FLU-PRO daily for up to 14 days. Item-level and factor analyses were used to remove items and determine factor structure. Reliability of the final tool was estimated using Cronbach α and intraclass correlation coefficients (2-day reliability). Convergent and known-groups validity and responsiveness were assessed using global assessments of influenza severity and return to usual health. RESULTS: Of the 536 patients enrolled, 221 influenza-positive subjects comprised the analytical sample. The mean age of the patients was 40.7 years, 60.2% were women, and 59.7% were white. The final 32-item measure has six factors/domains (nose, throat, eyes, chest/respiratory, gastrointestinal, and body/systemic), with a higher order factor representing symptom severity overall (comparative fit index = 0.92; root mean square error of approximation = 0.06). Cronbach α was high (total = 0.92; domain range = 0.71-0.87); test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, day 1-day 2) was 0.83 for total scores and 0.57 to 0.79 for domains. Day 1 FLU-PRO domain and total scores were moderately to highly correlated (≥0.30) with Patient Global Rating of Flu Severity (except nose and throat). Consistent with known-groups validity, scores differentiated severity groups on the basis of global rating (total: F = 57.2, P < 0.001; domains: F = 8.9-67.5, P < 0.001). Subjects reporting return to usual health showed significantly greater (P < 0.05) FLU-PRO score improvement by day 7 than did those who did not, suggesting score responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that FLU-PRO scores are reliable, valid, and responsive to change in influenza-positive adults.

"Differential risk of hospitalization among single virus infections causing influenza-like illnesses".

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory infections are a major cause of morbidity in children and are often caused by viruses. However, the relative severity of illness associated with different viruses is unclear. The objective of this study was to evaluate the risk of hospitalization from different viruses in children presenting with an influenza-like illness (ILI). METHODS: Data from children 5 years old or younger participating in an ILI natural history study from April 2010 to March 2014 was analyzed. The adjusted odds ratio for hospitalization was estimated in children with infections caused by respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), metapneumovirus, bocavirus, parainfluenza viruses, rhinovirus/enterovirus, coronavirus, adenovirus, and influenza. RESULTS: A total of 1486 children (408 outpatients and 1078 inpatients) were included in this analysis. At least one virus was detected in 1227 (82.6%) patients. The most frequent viruses detected as single pathogens were RSV (n = 286), rhinovirus/enterovirus (n = 251), parainfluenza viruses (n = 104), and influenza A or B (n = 99). After controlling for potential confounders (age, sex, recruitment site, days from symptom onset to enrollment, and underlying illnesses), children with RSV and metapneumovirus infections showed a greater likelihood of hospitalization than those infected by parainfluenza viruses (OR 2.7 and 1.9, respectively), rhinovirus/enterovirus (OR 3.1 and 2.1, respectively), coronaviruses (OR 4.9 and 3.4, respectively), adenovirus (OR 4.6 and 3.2, respectively), and influenza (OR 6.3 and 4.4, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Children presenting with ILI caused by RSV and metapneumovirus were at greatest risk for hospitalization, while children with rhinovirus/enterovirus, parainfluenza, coronavirus, adenovirus, and influenza were at lower risk of hospitalization.