Effect of Oral Oseltamivir on Virological Outcomes in Low-risk Adults With Influenza: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Duration of viral shedding is a determinant of infectivity and transmissibility, but few data exist about oseltamivir's ability to alter viral shedding. METHODS: From January 2012 through October 2017, a randomized, double-blinded multicenter clinical trial was conducted in adults aged 18-64 years at 42 sites in Thailand, the United States, and Argentina. Participants with influenza A or B and without risk factors for complications of influenza were screened for the study. Eligible participants were randomized to receive oseltamivir 75 mg or placebo twice daily for 5 days. The primary endpoint was the percentage of participants with virus detectable by polymerase chain reaction in nasopharyngeal swab at day 3. RESULTS: Of 716 adults screened for the study, 558 were randomized, and 501 were confirmed to have influenza. Forty-six participants in the pilot study were excluded, and 449 of the 455 participants in the population for the primary analysis had day 3 viral shedding results. Ninety-nine (45.0%) of 220 participants in the oseltamivir arm had virus detected at day 3 compared with 131 (57.2%) of 229 participants in the placebo arm (absolute difference of -12.2% [-21.4%, -3.0%], P =; .010). The median time to alleviation of symptoms was 79.0 hours for the oseltamivir arm and 84.0 hours for the placebo arm (P =; .34) in those with confirmed influenza infection. CONCLUSIONS: Oseltamivir decreased viral shedding in this low-risk population. However, in the population enrolled in this study, it did not significantly decrease the time to resolution of clinical symptoms. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01314911.

Anti-influenza immune plasma for the treatment of patients with severe influenza A: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Infection with influenza virus causes substantial morbidity and mortality globally, although antiviral treatments are available. Previous studies have suggested that anti-influenza immune plasma could be beneficial as treatment, but they were not designed as randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trials. Therefore, we aimed to prospectively evaluate the clinical efficacy of high-titre immune plasma compared with standard low-titre plasma to improve outcomes in patients with severe influenza A infection. METHODS: We did this randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial at 41 US medical centres to assess the efficacy of high-titre anti-influenza plasma (haemagglutination inhibition antibody titre ≥1:80) compared with low-titre plasma (≤1:10). Children and adults with PCR-confirmed influenza A infection, a National Early Warning score of 3 or greater, and onset of illness within 6 days before randomisation were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) using an interactive web response system to receive either two units (or paediatric equivalent) of high-titre plasma (high-titre group) or low-titre plasma (low-titre group), and were followed up for 28 days from randomisation. High-titre and low-titre plasma had the same appearance. Randomisation was stratified by severity (in intensive care unit, not in intensive care but requiring supplemental oxygen, or not in intensive care and not requiring supplemental oxygen) and age (<18 years and ≥18 years). All participants, site staff, and the study team were masked to treatment allocation until after the final database lock. The primary endpoint was clinical status assessed by a six-point ordinal scale on day 7 (death, in intensive care, hospitalised but requiring supplemental oxygen, hospitalised not requiring supplemental oxygen, discharged but unable to resume normal activities, and discharged with full resumption of normal activities) analysed in a proportional odds model (an odds ratio [OR] >1 indicates improvement in clinical status across all categories for the high-titre vs the low-titre group). The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population, excluding two participants who did not receive plasma. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02572817. FINDINGS: Participants were recruited between Jan 26, 2016, and April 19, 2018. Of 200 participants enrolled (177 adults and 23 children), 140 met the criteria for randomisation and were assigned to the high-titre group (n=92) or to the control low-titre group (n=48). One participant from each group did not receive plasma. At baseline, 60 (43%) of 138 participants were in intensive care and 55 (71%) of 78 participants who were not in intensive care required oxygen. 93% of planned plasma infusions were completed. The study was terminated in July, 2018, when independent efficacy analysis showed low conditional power to detect an effect of high-titre plasma even if full accrual (150 participants) was achieved. The proportional OR for improved clinical status on day 7 was 1·22 (95% CI 0·65-2·29, p=0·54). 47 (34%) of 138 participants experienced 88 serious adverse events: 32 (35%) with 60 events in the high-titre group and 15 (32%) with 28 events in the low-titre group. The most common serious adverse events were acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS; four [4%] vs two [4%]), allergic transfusion reactions (two [2%] vs two [4%]), and respiratory distress (three [3%] vs none). 65 (47%) participants experienced 183 adverse events: 42 (46%) with 126 events in the high-titre group and 23 (49%) with 57 events in the low-titre group. The most common adverse events were anaemia (four [3%] vs two [4%]) and ARDS (four [3%] vs three [5%]). Ten patients died during the study (six [7%] in the high-titre group vs four [9%] in the low-titre group, p=0·73). The most common cause of death was worsening of acute respiratory distress syndrome (two [2%] vs two [4%] patients). INTERPRETATION: High-titre anti-influenza plasma conferred no significant benefit over non-immune plasma. Although our study did not have the precision to rule out a small, clinically relevant effect, the benefit is insufficient to justify the use of immune plasma for treating patients with severe influenza A. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (Bethesda, MD, USA).

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.

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

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.

Phase II, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a polyclonal anti-Staphylococcus aureus capsular polysaccharide immune globulin in treatment of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia.

New treatment modalities are needed for the treatment of infections due to multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. S. aureus capsular polysaccharide immune globulin (Altastaph) is a polyclonal immune globulin preparation that is being developed as adjunctive therapy for persons with S. aureus infections complicated by bacteremia. In a phase II, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 40 subjects with documented S. aureus bacteremia received standard therapy plus either Altastaph at 200 mg/kg of body weight in each of two infusions 24 h apart or placebo. During the 42-day observation period, antibody pharmacokinetics and safety were the primary characteristics studied. Information regarding the resolution of bacteremia and fever was also analyzed. Anti-type-5 and anti-type-8 capsular antibody levels peaked after the second infusion at 550 mug/ml and 419 mug/ml, respectively, and remained above 100 mug/ml at day 28. A total of 316 adverse events were noted in 39 of 40 subjects. Infusion-related adverse events in Altastaph recipients were infrequent and similar to those among recipients of commercial intravenously administered immunoglobulin G products. Five of 21 (23%) subjects in the Altastaph group died, whereas 2 of 18 (11%) subjects in the placebo group died (P = 0.42). Compared to the control patients, the Altastaph recipients had a shorter median time to the resolution of fever (2 days and 7 days, respectively; P = 0.09) and a shorter length of hospital stay (9 days and 14 days, respectively; P = 0.03). However, these findings are exploratory, and there were few differences in the other variables measured. High levels of opsonizing antibodies were maintained for the initial 4 weeks. Although the study was not powered to show efficacy, these preliminary findings and safety profile suggest that Altastaph may be an effective adjunct to antibiotics and warrants further investigation (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00063089).

Clinafloxacin for the treatment of bacterial endocarditis.

We report the results of a prospective, multicenter trial assessing intravenous and oral clinafloxacin treatment for infective endocarditis. Sixty-six patients constituted the final study population. Among the 53 patients with native valve infection, Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus viridans were the most common pathogens. Twelve patients with native valve infection required surgery, at which time all valve tissue culture results were negative. The overall success rate for native valve infection was 87%. Single valves were involved in 11 of 13 patients with prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE), and multiple valves were involved in 2 cases. Enterococcus faecalis was the most common pathogen, causing 4 of the PVE cases. The overall success rate for treatment of PVE was 69%. Patients with PVE who did not respond to treatment presented with complications that predict poor prognosis. Clinafloxacin may be effective for both native and PVE, but further studies are indicated.

Comparative Effects of Ceftazidime Two or Three Times Daily in Patients with Skin and Skin Structure Infections.

BACKGROUND: Skin and skin structure infections are among the most common infectious diagnoses in both the hospital and community settings. If untreated, these infections can produce serious complications. Successful antimicrobial therapy for these infections requires coverage against the causative pathogens, particularly Staphylococcus aureus. OBJECTIVE: This randomized, single-blind, multicenter study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous ceftazidime 2 g given two times daily (BID) with that of intravenous ceftazidime 1 g given three times daily (TID) for the treatment of skin and skin structure infections caused by ceftazidime-sensitive pathogens. METHODS: Adults (greater-than-or-equal18 years) were eligible for enrollment if they were hospitalized or in home health care settings and they had a skin or skin structure infection caused by a ceftazidime-sensitive pathogen. Patients were randomly assigned to receive ceftazidime 2 g every 12 h or ceftazidime 1 g every 8 h as an intermittent infusion over 15--30 min. Treatment was continued for 2--3 days beyond the time the patient became asymptomatic or evidence of bacterial eradication was obtained; however, total treatment duration had to be at least 5 days. Patients were assessed for their clinical and bacteriological response at the end of treatment and for their clinical response at follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 806 patients were enrolled in the study, 406 of whom received ceftazidime 2 g BID and 400 of whom received ceftazidime 1 g TID. Both treatments were administered for a mean duration of 9 days. At the end of therapy, 248 of 264 (94%) clinically evaluable patients receiving ceftazidime BID and 258 of 275% (94%) clinically evaluable patients receiving ceftazidime TID achieved clinical cure or improvement (p = 0.953). Pathogens were eradicated or presumed to be eradicated from 217 of 256 (85%) bacteriologically evaluable patients receiving ceftazidime BID and from 228 of 266 (86%) bacteriologically evaluable patients receiving ceftazidime TID (p = 0.760). Of 1131 isolates, the most common pathogens were S. aureus (30%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (10%). Both regimens were well tolerated with only 13 patients (3%) in the BID group and 16 patients (4%) in the TID group withdrawing because of an adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that ceftazidime 2 g given twice daily is as effective as ceftazidime 1 g given three times daily for the treatment of skin and skin structure infections. In addition, the twice-daily regimen has the advantage of convenience.