Pharmacoeconomic study of anti-influenza virus drugs in Japan based on a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: An analysis was conducted in Japan to determine the most cost-effective neuraminidase inhibitor for the treatment of influenza virus infections from the healthcare payer's standpoint. OBJECTIVE: This study reanalysed the findings of a previous study that had some limitations (no probabilistic sensitivity analysis and quality of life scores measured by the EQ-5D-3L instead of the EQ-5D-5L) and used a decision tree model with only three health conditions. METHODS: This study incorporated new data from a network meta-analysis study into the first examination. The second examination involved constructing a new decision tree model encompassing seven health conditions and identifying costs, which consisted of medical costs and drug prices based on the 2020 version of the Japanese medical fee index. Effectiveness outcomes were measured using EQ-5D-5L questionnaires for adult patients with a history of influenza virus infections within a 14-day time horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the uncertainty. RESULTS: In the first examination, the base-case cost-effectiveness analysis confirmed that oseltamivir outperformed laninamivir, zanamivir and peramivir, making it the most cost-effective neuraminidase inhibitor. The second examination revealed that oseltamivir dominated the other agents. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed robust results that validated oseltamivir as the most cost effective among the four neuraminidase inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: This study thus reaffirms oseltamivir's position as the most cost-effective neuraminidase inhibitor for the treatment of influenza virus infections in Japan from the perspective of healthcare payment. These findings can help decision makers and healthcare providers in Japan.

Comparison of the incidence of bleeding between baloxavir marboxil and other anti-influenza drugs among outpatients with influenza virus infection: A retrospective cohort study using an employment-based health insurance claims database in Japan.

PURPOSE: Alerts for bleeding events are included in the Japanese package inserts of some anti-influenza drugs, including baloxavir marboxil and oseltamivir. However, there are few reports on the incidence of bleeding events during treatment with anti-influenza drugs. This large-scale quantitative assessment compared the incidence of bleeding events in influenza patients treated with baloxavir and other anti-influenza drugs and in untreated patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used a large-scale Japanese employment-based health insurance claims database provided by JMDC Inc. and included outpatients diagnosed with influenza between October 1, 2018 and April 11, 2019. Bleeding events were identified by International Classification of Diseases 10th revision codes. Incidences were compared between patients treated with baloxavir or neuraminidase inhibitors and untreated patients. Odds ratios were calculated after exact matching to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: Among 529 201 influenza episodes, 30 964 were untreated and 498 237 were treated with anti-influenza drugs: baloxavir, 207 630; oseltamivir, 143 722; zanamivir, 28 208; peramivir, 5304; laninamivir, 113 373. Crude incidence proportions for total bleeding up to 20 days after influenza diagnosis were similar among treated groups, with a slightly higher value for peramivir (0.21% vs. 0.19% for baloxavir, oseltamivir, zanamivir, and laninamivir), and 0.30% in untreated patients. After exact matching, the incidence of bleeding for baloxavir was similar to that for other anti-influenza treatments (odds ratios for baloxavir were 0.90-0.99 compared to other therapies). CONCLUSIONS: Based on real-world observation using a large-scale claims database, a similar incidence of bleeding events was observed in recipients of the different anti-influenza drugs.

Influenza polymerase inhibitor resistance: Assessment of the current state of the art - A report of the isirv Antiviral group.

It is more than 20 years since the neuraminidase inhibitors, oseltamivir and zanamivir were approved for the treatment and prevention of influenza. Guidelines for global surveillance and methods for evaluating resistance were established initially by the Neuraminidase Inhibitor Susceptibility Network (NISN), which merged 10 years ago with the International Society for influenza and other Respiratory Virus Diseases (isirv) to become the isirv-Antiviral Group (isirv-AVG). With the ongoing development of new influenza polymerase inhibitors and recent approval of baloxavir marboxil, the isirv-AVG held a closed meeting in August 2019 to discuss the impact of resistance to these inhibitors. Following this meeting and review of the current literature, this article is intended to summarize current knowledge regarding the clinical impact of resistance to polymerase inhibitors and approaches for surveillance and methods for laboratory evaluation of resistance, both in vitro and in animal models. We highlight limitations and gaps in current knowledge and suggest some strategies for addressing these gaps, including the need for additional clinical studies of influenza antiviral drug combinations. Lessons learned from influenza resistance monitoring may also be helpful for establishing future drug susceptibility surveillance and testing for SARS-CoV-2.

Assessment of adverse events related to anti-influenza neuraminidase inhibitors using the FDA adverse event reporting system and online patient reviews.

The recommended antiviral drugs available for the treatment and prevention of influenza are neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs). The aim of this study was to evaluate age-related clinical manifestations of adverse events (AEs) related to NAIs. FAERS and WebMD data were downloaded. The available NAIs selected for the analysis were oseltamivir, peramivir, zanamivir, and laninamivir. Disproportionality was analyzed using the proportional reporting ratio (PRR), the reporting odds ratio (ROR), and the information component (IC) methods. In total, 16729 AEs from 4598 patients and 575 AEs from 440 patients in the FAERS and WebMD, respectively, were included in the analysis. In the FAERS, AEs were more common among those who were younger (<19 years) for zanamivir, while for those who were older (>65 years) for peramivir. A disproportionality analysis showed that signals for vomiting and hallucinations were detected in younger patients given oseltamivir, while an abnormal hepatic function, cardiac failure, shock, and cardio-respiratory arrest were detected in older patients given peramivir. Psychiatric disorders were most common in younger and older patients, while gastrointestinal disorders were most common in adult given oseltamivir in the WebMD. Adverse symptoms related to NAIs varied and depended on the drugs used and the age of the patient.

Neuraminidase inhibitors for influenza: a systematic review and meta-analysis of regulatory and mortality data.

BACKGROUND: Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are stockpiled and recommended by public health agencies for treating and preventing seasonal and pandemic influenza. They are used clinically worldwide. OBJECTIVES: To (1) describe the potential benefits and harms of NIs for influenza in all age groups by reviewing all clinical study reports (CSRs) of published and unpublished randomised, placebo-controlled trials and regulatory comments; and (2) determine the effect of oseltamivir (Tamiflu(®), Roche) treatment on mortality in patients with 2009A/H1N1 influenza. METHODS: We searched trial registries, electronic databases and corresponded with regulators and sponsors to identify randomised trials of NIs. We requested full CSRs and accessed regulators' comments. We included only those trials for which we had CSRs. To examine the effects of oseltamivir on 2009A/H1N1 influenza mortality, we requested individual patient data (IPD) from corresponding authors of all included observational studies. RESULTS: Effect of oseltamivir and zanamivir (Relenza®, GlaxoSmithKline) in the prevention and treatment of influenza: Oseltamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults by 16.8 hours [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.4 to 25.1 hours]. Zanamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults by 0.60 days (95% CI 0.39 to 0.81 days). Oseltamivir reduced unverified pneumonia in adult treatment [risk difference (RD) 1.00%, 95% CI 0.22% to 1.49%]; similar findings were observed with zanamivir prophylaxis in adults (RD 0.32%, 95% CI 0.09% to 0.41%). Oseltamivir treatment of adults increased the risk of nausea (RD 3.66%, 95% CI 0.90% to 7.39%) and vomiting (RD 4.56%, 95% CI 2.39% to 7.58%). In the treatment of children, oseltamivir induced vomiting (RD 5.34%, 95% CI 1.75% to 10.29%). Both oseltamivir and zanamivir prophylaxis reduced the risk of symptomatic influenza in individuals (oseltamivir RD 3.05%, 95% CI 1.83% to 3.88%; zanamivir RD 1.98%, 95% CI 0.98% to 2.54%) and in households (oseltamivir RD 13.6%, 95% CI 9.52% to 15.47%; zanamivir RD 14.84%, 95% CI 12.18% to 16.55%). Oseltamivir increased psychiatric adverse events in the combined on- and off-treatment periods (RD 1.06%, 95% CI 0.07% to 2.76%) and the risk of headaches while on treatment (RD 3.15%, 95% CI 0.88% to 5.78%). Effect of oseltamivir on mortality in patients with 2009A/H1N1 influenza: Analysis of summary data of 30 studies as well as IPD of four studies showed evidence of time-dependent bias. After adjusting for time-dependent bias and potential confounding variables, competing risks analysis of the IPD showed insufficient evidence that oseltamivir reduced the risk of mortality (hazard ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.65). CONCLUSIONS: Oseltamivir and zanamivir cause small reductions in the time to first alleviation of influenza symptoms in adults. The use of oseltamivir increases the risk of nausea, vomiting, psychiatric events in adults and vomiting in children. Oseltamivir has no protective effect on mortality among patients with 2009A/H1N1 influenza. Prophylaxis with either NI may reduce symptomatic influenza in individuals and in households. The balance between benefits and harms should be considered when making decisions about use of NIs for either prophylaxis or treatment of influenza. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002245. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in healthy adults and children

BACKGROUND: Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are stockpiled and recommended by public health agencies for treating and preventing seasonal and pandemic influenza. They are used clinically worldwide. OBJECTIVE: To describe the potential benefits and harms of NIs for influenza in all age groups by reviewing all clinical study reports of published and unpublished randomised, placebo-controlled trials and regulatory comments. METHODS Search methods: We searched trial registries, electronic databases (to 22 July 2013) and regulatory archives, and corresponded with manufacturers to identify all trials. We also requested clinical study reports. We focused on the primary data sources of manufacturers but we checked that there were no published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from non-manufacturer sources by running electronic searches in the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Embase.com, PubMed (not MEDLINE), the Database of Reviews of Effects, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Economic Evaluations Database. Selection criteria: Randomised, placebo-controlled trials on adults and children with confirmed or suspected exposure to naturally occurring influenza. Data collection and analysis: We extracted clinical study reports and assessed risk of bias using purpose-built instruments. We analysed the effects of zanamivir and oseltamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms, influenza outcomes, complications, hospitalisations and adverse events in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. All trials were sponsored by the manufacturers. MAIN RESULTS: We obtained 107 clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), GlaxoSmithKline and Roche. We accessed comments by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), EMA and Japanese regulator. We included 53 trials in Stage 1 (a judgement of appropriate study design) and 46 in Stage ...

Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are stockpiled and recommended by public health agencies for treating and preventing seasonal and pandemic influenza. They are used clinically worldwide. OBJECTIVES: To describe the potential benefits and harms of NIs for influenza in all age groups by reviewing all clinical study reports of published and unpublished randomised, placebo-controlled trials and regulatory comments. SEARCH METHODS: We searched trial registries, electronic databases (to 22 July 2013) and regulatory archives, and corresponded with manufacturers to identify all trials. We also requested clinical study reports. We focused on the primary data sources of manufacturers but we checked that there were no published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from non-manufacturer sources by running electronic searches in the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Embase.com, PubMed (not MEDLINE), the Database of Reviews of Effects, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Economic Evaluations Database. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, placebo-controlled trials on adults and children with confirmed or suspected exposure to naturally occurring influenza. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted clinical study reports and assessed risk of bias using purpose-built instruments. We analysed the effects of zanamivir and oseltamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms, influenza outcomes, complications, hospitalisations and adverse events in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. All trials were sponsored by the manufacturers. MAIN RESULTS: We obtained 107 clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), GlaxoSmithKline and Roche. We accessed comments by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), EMA and Japanese regulator. We included 53 trials in Stage 1 (a judgement of appropriate study design) and 46 in Stage 2 (formal analysis), including 20 oseltamivir (9623 participants) and 26 zanamivir trials (14,628 participants). Inadequate reporting put most of the zanamivir studies and half of the oseltamivir studies at a high risk of selection bias. There were inadequate measures in place to protect 11 studies of oseltamivir from performance bias due to non-identical presentation of placebo. Attrition bias was high across the oseltamivir studies and there was also evidence of selective reporting for both the zanamivir and oseltamivir studies. The placebo interventions in both sets of trials may have contained active substances. Time to first symptom alleviation. For the treatment of adults, oseltamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms by 16.8 hours (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.4 to 25.1 hours, P < 0.0001). This represents a reduction in the time to first alleviation of symptoms from 7 to 6.3 days. There was no effect in asthmatic children, but in otherwise healthy children there was (reduction by a mean difference of 29 hours, 95% CI 12 to 47 hours, P = 0.001). Zanamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults by 0.60 days (95% CI 0.39 to 0.81 days, P < 0.00001), equating to a reduction in the mean duration of symptoms from 6.6 to 6.0 days. The effect in children was not significant. In subgroup analysis we found no evidence of a difference in treatment effect for zanamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults in the influenza-infected and non-influenza-infected subgroups (P = 0.53). Hospitalisations. Treatment of adults with oseltamivir had no significant effect on hospitalisations: risk difference (RD) 0.15% (95% CI -0.78 to 0.91). There was also no significant effect in children or in prophylaxis. Zanamivir hospitalisation data were unreported. Serious influenza complications or those leading to study withdrawal. In adult treatment trials, oseltamivir did not significantly reduce those complications classified as serious or those which led to study withdrawal (RD 0.07%, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.44), nor in child treatment trials; neither did zanamivir in the treatment of adults or in prophylaxis. There were insufficient events to compare this outcome for oseltamivir in prophylaxis or zanamivir in the treatment of children. Pneumonia. Oseltamivir significantly reduced self reported, investigator-mediated, unverified pneumonia (RD 1.00%, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.49); number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 100 (95% CI 67 to 451) in the treated population. The effect was not significant in the five trials that used a more detailed diagnostic form for pneumonia. There were no definitions of pneumonia (or other complications) in any trial. No oseltamivir treatment studies reported effects on radiologically confirmed pneumonia. There was no significant effect on unverified pneumonia in children. There was no significant effect of zanamivir on either self reported or radiologically confirmed pneumonia. In prophylaxis, zanamivir significantly reduced the risk of self reported, investigator-mediated, unverified pneumonia in adults (RD 0.32%, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.41); NNTB = 311 (95% CI 244 to 1086), but not oseltamivir. Bronchitis, sinusitis and otitis media. Zanamivir significantly reduced the risk of bronchitis in adult treatment trials (RD 1.80%, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.80); NNTB = 56 (36 to 155), but not oseltamivir. Neither NI significantly reduced the risk of otitis media and sinusitis in both adults and children. Harms of treatment. Oseltamivir in the treatment of adults increased the risk of nausea (RD 3.66%, 95% CI 0.90 to 7.39); number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) = 28 (95% CI 14 to 112) and vomiting (RD 4.56%, 95% CI 2.39 to 7.58); NNTH = 22 (14 to 42). The proportion of participants with four-fold increases in antibody titre was significantly lower in the treated group compared to the control group (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.97, I(2) statistic = 0%) (5% absolute difference between arms). Oseltamivir significantly decreased the risk of diarrhoea (RD 2.33%, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.81); NNTB = 43 (95% CI 27 to 709) and cardiac events (RD 0.68%, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.0); NNTB = 148 (101 to 2509) compared to placebo during the on-treatment period. There was a dose-response effect on psychiatric events in the two oseltamivir "pivotal" treatment trials, WV15670 and WV15671, at 150 mg (standard dose) and 300 mg daily (high dose) (P = 0.038). In the treatment of children, oseltamivir induced vomiting (RD 5.34%, 95% CI 1.75 to 10.29); NNTH = 19 (95% CI 10 to 57). There was a significantly lower proportion of children on oseltamivir with a four-fold increase in antibodies (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00, I(2) = 0%). Prophylaxis. In prophylaxis trials, oseltamivir and zanamivir reduced the risk of symptomatic influenza in individuals (oseltamivir: RD 3.05% (95% CI 1.83 to 3.88); NNTB = 33 (26 to 55); zanamivir: RD 1.98% (95% CI 0.98 to 2.54); NNTB = 51 (40 to 103)) and in households (oseltamivir: RD 13.6% (95% CI 9.52 to 15.47); NNTB = 7 (6 to 11); zanamivir: RD 14.84% (95% CI 12.18 to 16.55); NNTB = 7 (7 to 9)). There was no significant effect on asymptomatic influenza (oseltamivir: RR 1.14 (95% CI 0.39 to 3.33); zanamivir: RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.24)). Non-influenza, influenza-like illness could not be assessed due to data not being fully reported. In oseltamivir prophylaxis studies, psychiatric adverse events were increased in the combined on- and off-treatment periods (RD 1.06%, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.76); NNTH = 94 (95% CI 36 to 1538) in the study treatment population. Oseltamivir increased the risk of headaches whilst on treatment (RD 3.15%, 95% CI 0.88 to 5.78); NNTH = 32 (95% CI 18 to 115), renal events whilst on treatment (RD 0.67%, 95% CI -2.93 to 0.01); NNTH = 150 (NNTH 35 to NNTB > 1000) and nausea whilst on treatment (RD 4.15%, 95% CI 0.86 to 9.51); NNTH = 25 (95% CI 11 to 116). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oseltamivir and zanamivir have small, non-specific effects on reducing the time to alleviation of influenza symptoms in adults, but not in asthmatic children. Using either drug as prophylaxis reduces the risk of developing symptomatic influenza. Treatment trials with oseltamivir or zanamivir do not settle the question of whether the complications of influenza (such as pneumonia) are reduced, because of a lack of diagnostic definitions. The use of oseltamivir increases the risk of adverse effects, such as nausea, vomiting, psychiatric effects and renal events in adults and vomiting in children. The lower bioavailability may explain the lower toxicity of zanamivir compared to oseltamivir. The balance between benefits and harms should be considered when making decisions about use of both NIs for either the prophylaxis or treatment of influenza. The influenza virus-specific mechanism of action proposed by the producers does not fit the clinical evidence.

Viral lung infections: epidemiology, virology, clinical features, and management of avian influenza A(H7N9).

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The avian influenza A(H7N9) virus has jumped species barrier and caused severe human infections. Here, we present the virological features relevant to clinical practice, and summarize the epidemiology, clinical findings, diagnosis, treatment, and preventive strategies of A(H7N9) infection. RECENT FINDINGS: As of 18 February 2014, A(H7N9) virus has caused 354 infections in mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong with a case-fatality rate of 32%. Elderly men were most affected. Most patients acquired the infection from direct contact with poultry or from a contaminated environment, although person-to-person transmission has likely occurred. A(H7N9) infection has usually presented with severe pneumonia, often complicated by acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiorgan failure. Mild infections have been reported in children and young adults. Nasopharyngeal aspirate and sputum samples should be collected for diagnosis, preferably using reverse transcriptase-PCR. Early treatment with neuraminidase inhibitors improved survival, but the efficacy of antivirals was hampered by resistant mutants. The closure of live poultry markets in affected areas has significantly contributed to the decline in the incidence of human cases. SUMMARY: The emergence of A(H7N9) virus represents a significant health threat. High vigilance is necessary so that appropriate treatment can be instituted for the patient and preventive measures can be implemented.

The effect of the MDCK cell selected neuraminidase D151G mutation on the drug susceptibility assessment of influenza A(H3N2) viruses.

Propagation of influenza A(H3N2) viruses in MDCK cells has been associated with the emergence of neuraminidase (NA) variants carrying a change at residue 151. In this study, the pyrosequencing assay revealed that ∼90% of A(H3N2) virus isolates analyzed (n=150) contained more than one amino acid variant (D/G/N) at position 151. Susceptibilities of the virus isolates to zanamivir and oseltamivir were assessed using the chemiluminescent and fluorescent NA inhibition (NI) assays. In the chemiluminescent assay, which utilizes NA-Star® substrate, up to 13-fold increase in zanamivir-IC50 was detected for isolates containing a high proportion (>50%) of the G151 NA variant. However, an increase in zanamivir-IC50s was not seen in the fluorescent assay, which uses MUNANA as substrate. To investigate this discrepancy, recombinant NAs (rNAs) were prepared and tested in both NI assays. Regardless of the assay used, the zanamivir-IC50 for the rNA G151 was much greater (>1500-fold) than that for rNA D151 wild-type. However, zanamivir resistance conferred by the G151 substitution was masked in preparations containing the D151 NA which had much greater activity, especially against MUNANA. In conclusion, the presence of NA D151G variants in cell culture-grown viruses interferes with drug susceptibility assessment and therefore measures need to be implemented to prevent their emergence.

Cell culture-selected substitutions in influenza A(H3N2) neuraminidase affect drug susceptibility assessment.

Assessment of drug susceptibility has become an integral part of influenza virus surveillance. In this study, we describe the drug resistance profile of influenza A(H3N2) virus, A/Mississippi/05/2011, collected from a patient treated with oseltamivir and detected via surveillance. An MDCK cell-grown isolate of this virus exhibited highly reduced inhibition by the neuraminidase (NA) inhibitors (NAIs) oseltamivir (8,005-fold), zanamivir (813-fold), peramivir (116-fold), and laninamivir (257-fold) in the NA inhibition assay. Sequence analysis of its NA gene revealed a known oseltamivir-resistance marker, the glutamic acid-to-valine substitution at position 119 (E119V), and an additional change, threonine to isoleucine at position 148 (T148I). Unlike E119V, T148I was not detected in the clinical sample but acquired during viral propagation in MDCK cells. Using recombinant proteins, T148I by itself was shown to cause only a 6-fold increase in the zanamivir 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) and had no effect on inhibition by other drugs. The T148I substitution reduced NA activity by 50%, most likely by affecting the positioning of the 150 loop at the NA catalytic site. Using pyrosequencing, changes at T148 were detected in 35 (23%) of 150 MDCK cell-grown A(H3N2) viruses tested, which was lower than the frequency of changes at D151 (85%), an NA residue previously implicated in cell selection. We demonstrate that culturing of the A(H3N2) viruses (n = 11) at a low multiplicity of infection delayed the emergence of the NA variants with changes at position 148 and/or 151, especially when conducted in MDCK-SIAT1 cells. Our findings highlight the current challenges in monitoring susceptibility of influenza A(H3N2) viruses to the NAI class of antiviral drugs.

The value of neuraminidase inhibitors for the prevention and treatment of seasonal influenza: a systematic review of systematic reviews.

Controversy has arisen regarding the effectiveness of neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs), especially against influenza-related complications. A literature search was performed to critically assess the evidence collected by the available systematic reviews (SRs) regarding the benefits and disadvantages of NIs (oseltamivir, zanamivir) compared to placebos in healthy and at-risk individuals of all ages for prophylaxis and treatment of seasonal influenza. A SR was done using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Health Technology Assessment Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Medline (January 2006-July 2012). Two reviewers selected SRs based on randomized clinical trials, which were restricted to intention-to-treat results, and they assessed review (AMSTAR) and study quality indicators (GRADE). The SRs included (N = 9) were of high quality. The efficacy of NIs in prophylaxis ranged from 64% (16-85) to 92% (37-99); the absolute risk reduction ranged from 1.2% to 12.1% (GRADE moderate to low). Clinically relevant treatment benefits of NIs were small in healthy adults and children suffering from influenza-like illness (GRADE high to moderate). Oseltamivir reduced antibiotic usage in healthy adults according to one SR, but this was not confirmed by other reviews (GRADE low). Zanamivir showed a preventive effect on antibiotic usage in children (95% (77-99);GRADE moderate) and on the occurrence of bronchitis in at-risk individuals (59% (30-76);GRADE moderate). No evidence was available on the treatment benefits of NIs in elderly and at-risk groups and their effects on hospitalization and mortality. In oseltamivir trials, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea were significant side-effects. For zanamivir trials, no adverse effects have been reported. The combination of diagnostic uncertainty, the risk for virus strain resistance, possible side effects and financial cost outweigh the small benefits of oseltamivir or zanamivir for the prophylaxis and treatment of healthy individuals. No relevant benefits of these NIs on complications in at-risk individuals have been established.

U.S. utilization patterns of influenza antiviral medications during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic in the United States occurred from April 2009 to April 2010. The 2009 H1N1 influenza virus was susceptible to neuraminidase inhibitors (oseltamivir and zanamivir). OBJECTIVES: To characterize the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic in the United States from April 2009 to April 2010 using weekly influenza antiviral prescription utilization data and the CDC's weekly reports of the number of visits for influenza-like-illnesses by the Influenza Sentinel Provider Surveillance Network. METHODS: A proprietary outpatient data source used by the FDA, which captures adjudicated U.S. prescription claims for select influenza antiviral drugs, was used to conduct this analysis. Data were extracted weekly and analyzed for surveillance during the pandemic. Results were compiled at the end of the pandemic. RESULTS: Oseltamivir has dominated the U.S. influenza antiviral market share of dispensed prescriptions since approval in October 1999 and was the primary influenza antiviral drug used during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. However, commercial availability of the suspension formulation of oseltamivir was reduced by high demand during the pandemic. Dispensed prescription trends of other influenza antiviral medications studied followed that those of oseltamivir, even antivirals for which the 2009 H1N1 strains showed resistance. CONCLUSION: Weekly prescription utilization of all influenza antivirals used to treat influenza during the seasonal influenza outbreak followed the same trend of weekly reports of the number of visits for influenza-like-illnesses (ILI) by the Influenza Sentinel Provider Surveillance Network. The ILI epidemic curve resembled dispensed antiviral prescription trends (both overall and stratified by age), providing some corroboration for the surveillance data.

Assessment of the effects of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetic profile of laninamivir, a novel neuraminidase inhibitor, after a single inhaled dose of its Prodrug, CS-8958.

This open-label, single-dose study assessed the safety and pharmacokinetics of laninamivir, a new long-acting neuraminidase inhibitor, after an inhaled 20-mg dose of its prodrug, CS-8958, to a total of 20 subjects with normal, mild, moderate, or severe renal impairment. CS-8958 and laninamivir concentrations were measured in plasma and urine by validated liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry methods. The area under the concentration-time curve extrapolated to infinity (AUC(0-inf)), maximum concentration (C(max)), and time to C(max) of CS-8958 did not change with the degree of renal impairment, whereas the half-life (t(1/2)) of CS-8958 increased with increasing renal insufficiency. The AUC(0-inf) and C(max) of laninamivir tended to increase along with the decrease of creatinine clearance. The AUC(0-inf) of laninamivir compared with normal subjects increased 1.10-, 2.03-, and 4.92-fold in subjects with mild, moderate, and severe renal impairment, respectively, without changing t(1/2) among the subjects. Renal clearance of both CS-8958 and laninamivir was well correlated with creatinine clearance. These data indicate that the rate-limiting step for the elimination of laninamivir would not be the renal excretion rate but rather the drug release rate to plasma from the retained tissues. CS-8958 was well tolerated by all the subjects, although increasing renal dysfunction leads to increasing systemic exposure to laninamivir, particularly in severe renal insufficiency.

Comprehensive assessment of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus drug susceptibility in vitro.

BACKGROUND: Antiviral drugs are an important option for managing infections caused by influenza viruses. This study assessed the drug susceptibility of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) viruses collected globally between April 2009 and January 2010. METHODS: Virus isolates were tested for adamantane susceptibility, using pyrosequencing to detect the S31N marker of adamantane resistance in the M2 protein and biological assays to assess viral replication in cell culture. To assess neuraminidase (NA) inhibitor (NAI) susceptibility, virus isolates were tested in chemiluminescent NA inhibition assays and by pyrosequencing to detect the H275Y (H274Y in N2 numbering) marker of oseltamivir resistance in the NA. RESULTS: With the exception of three, all viruses that were tested for adamantane susceptibility (n=3,362) were resistant to this class of drugs. All viruses tested for NAI susceptibility (n=3,359) were sensitive to two US Food and Drug Administration-approved NAIs, oseltamivir (mean ±sd 50% inhibitory concentration [IC(50)] 0.25 ±0.12 nM) and zanamivir (mean IC(50) 0.29 ±0.09 nM), except 23 (0.7%), which were resistant to oseltamivir, but sensitive to zanamivir. Oseltamivir-resistant viruses had the H275Y mutation in their NA and were detected in patients exposed to the drug through prophylaxis or treatment. NA activity of all viruses was inhibited by the NAIs peramivir, laninamivir (R-125489) and A-315675, except for H275Y variants, which exhibited approximately 100-fold reduction in peramivir susceptibility. CONCLUSIONS: This report provides data regarding antiviral susceptibility of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) surveillance viruses, the majority of which were resistant to adamantanes and sensitive to NAIs. These findings provide information essential for antiviral resistance monitoring and development of novel diagnostic tests for detecting influenza antiviral resistance.

Assessment of pandemic and seasonal influenza A (H1N1) virus susceptibility to neuraminidase inhibitors in three enzyme activity inhibition assays.

The neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) zanamivir and oseltamivir are currently the only antiviral drugs effective for the treatment and prophylaxis of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus infections. The proven potential of these viruses to acquire NAI resistance during treatment emphasizes the need to assess their NAI susceptibility. The 50% inhibitory concentrations (IC(50)s) are known to vary depending on the neuraminidase inhibition (NI) test used; however, few side-by-side comparisons of different NI assays have been done. In the present study, a panel of 11 isolates representing 2009 seasonal and pandemic influenza H1N1 viruses, including oseltamivir-resistant H275Y variants, were tested in three functional NI assays: chemiluminescent (CL), fluorescent (FL), and colorimetric (CM). The sensitivities of the viruses to zanamivir, oseltamivir, and three investigational NAIs (peramivir, R-125489, and A-315675) were assessed. All isolates with the exception of H275Y variants were sensitive to all five NAIs by all three NI assays. The H275Y variants showed substantially elevated IC(50)s against oseltamivir and peramivir. The three NI assays generally yielded consistent results; thus, the choice of NI assay does not appear to affect conclusions based on drug susceptibility surveillance. Each assay, however, offers certain advantages compared to the others: the CL assay required less virus volume and the FL assay provided the greatest difference in the IC(50)s between the wild type and the variants, whereas the IC(50)s obtained from the CM assay may be the most predictive of the drug concentrations needed to inhibit enzyme activity in humans. It would be desirable to develop an NI assay which combines the advantages of all three currently available assays but which lacks their shortcomings.