Amantadine and Rimantadine Inhibit Hepatitis A Virus Replication through the Induction of Autophagy.

Hepatitis A virus (HAV) infection is a major cause of acute viral hepatitis worldwide. Furthermore, HAV causes acute liver failure or acute-on-chronic liver failure. However, no potent anti-HAV drugs are currently available in the clinical situations. There have been some reports that amantadine, a broad-spectrum antiviral, suppresses HAV replication in vitro. Therefore, we examined the effects of amantadine and rimantadine, derivates of adamantane, on HAV replication, and investigated the mechanisms of these drugs. In the present study, we evaluated the effects of amantadine and rimantadine on HAV HM175 genotype IB subgenomic replicon replication and HAV HA11-1299 genotype IIIA replication in cell culture infection systems. Amantadine and rimantadine significantly inhibited HAV replication at the post-entry stage in Huh7 cells. HAV infection inhibited autophagy by suppressing the autophagy marker light chain 3 and reducing number of lysosomes. Proteomic analysis on HAV-infected Huh7 cells treated by amantadine and rimantadine revealed the changes of the expression levels in 42 of 373 immune response-related proteins. Amantadine and rimantadine inhibited HAV replication, partially through the enhancement of autophagy. Taken together, our results suggest a novel mechanism by which HAV replicates along with the inhibition of autophagy and that amantadine and rimantadine inhibit HAV replication by enhancing autophagy. IMPORTANCE Amantadine, a nonspecific antiviral medication, also effectively inhibits HAV replication. Autophagy is an important cellular mechanism in several virus-host cell interactions. The results of this study provide evidence indicating that autophagy is involved in HAV replication and plays a role in the HAV life cycle. In addition, amantadine and its derivative rimantadine suppress HAV replication partly by enhancing autophagy at the post-entry phase of HAV infection in human hepatocytes. Amantadine may be useful for the control of acute HAV infection by inhibiting cellular autophagy pathways during HAV infection processes.

Amantadine and rimantadine for influenza A in children and the elderly.

BACKGROUND: Influenza is an acute respiratory illness caused by influenza A and B viruses. Complications may occur, especially among children and the elderly. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of amantadine and rimantadine in preventing, treating and shortening the duration of influenza A in children and the elderly. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1966 to September week 4, 2014) and EMBASE (1980 to October 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing amantadine and/or rimantadine with no intervention, placebo, other antivirals or different doses or schedules of amantadine or rimantadine in children and the elderly with influenza A. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the search results. We extracted and analysed data using the standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 12 studies (2494 participants: 1586 children and 908 elderly) comparing amantadine and rimantadine with placebo, paracetamol (one trial: 69 children) or zanamivir (two trials: 545 elderly) to treat influenza A.Amantadine was effective in preventing influenza A in children (773 participants, risk ratio (RR) 0.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.30). The assumed risk of influenza A in the control group was 10 per 100. The corresponding risk in the rimantadine group was one per 100 (95% CI 0 to 3). Nevertheless, the quality of the evidence was low and the safety of the drug was not well established.For treatment, rimantadine was beneficial in abating fever on day three of treatment in children: one selected study with low risk of bias, moderate evidence quality and 69 participants (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.91). The assumed risk was 38 per 100. The corresponding risk in the rimantadine group was 14 per 100 (95% CI 5 to 34).Rimantadine did not show any prophylactic effect in the elderly. The quality of evidence was very low: 103 participants (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.14 to 1.41). The assumed risk was 17 per 100. The corresponding risk in the rimantadine group was 7 per 100 (95% CI 2 to 23).There was no evidence of adverse effects caused by treatment with amantadine or rimantadine.We found no studies assessing amantadine in the elderly. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the evidence combined with a lack of knowledge about the safety of amantadine and the limited benefits of rimantadine, do not indicate that amantadine and rimantadine compared to control (placebo or paracetamol) could be useful in preventing, treating and shortening the duration of influenza A in children and the elderly.

Antivirals for treatment of influenza: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of randomized, controlled trials in patients with influenza suggest a lack of evidence about the effects of antiviral therapy on several patient-important outcomes of influenza. PURPOSE: To systematically review observational studies for benefits and harms of oseltamivir, zanamivir, amantadine, or rimantadine in the treatment of influenza. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, SIGLE, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Panteleimon, and LILACS up to November 2010; contact with pharmaceutical companies; and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies in any language that compared single antiviral therapy with no therapy or other antiviral therapy, or that had no comparator, for influenza or influenza-like illness. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent investigators extracted data. Confidence in the estimates of the obtained effects (quality of evidence) was assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. DATA SYNTHESIS: 74 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses of the few studies providing effects with adjustment for confounders suggest that, in high-risk populations, oral oseltamivir may reduce mortality (odds ratio, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.13 to 0.43]; low-quality evidence), hospitalization (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.66 to 0.89]; low-quality evidence), and duration of symptoms (33 hours [CI, 21 to 45 hours]; very low-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. Earlier treatment with oseltamivir was generally associated with better outcomes. Inhaled zanamivir may lead to shorter symptom duration (23 hours [CI, 17 to 28 hours]; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer hospitalizations (odds ratio, 0.66 [CI, 0.37 to 1.18]) but more complications than no treatment. Direct comparison of oral oseltamivir and inhaled zanamivir suggests no important differences in key outcomes. Data from 1 study suggest that oral amantadine may reduce mortality and pneumonia associated with influenza A. No included study evaluated rimantadine. LIMITATIONS: Mortality was assessed in high-risk patients, and generalizability is limited. The overall body of evidence is limited by risk for confounding and selection, reporting, and publication bias. CONCLUSION: Therapy with oral oseltamivir and inhaled zanamivir may provide a net benefit over no treatment of influenza. However, as with the randomized trials, the confidence in the estimates of the effects for decision making is low to very low. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCES: World Health Organization and McMaster University.

Drug repurposing of rimantadine for treatment of cancer.

Repurposing of approved drugs allows strong savings in time and investment. Rimantadine is an FDA-approved drug for prevention and treatment of influenza A infection. Patent US2021330605 describes the use of rimantadine, an adamantane derivative, for the treatment of melanoma, breast cancer and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Rimantadine inhibited proliferation of cell lines of melanoma, breast cancer, and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, increased the survival of mice injected with cancer cell lines and restores the expression of MHC class I. Rimantadine has the potential to be used successfully in the treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Amantadine and rimantadine for influenza A in children and the elderly.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness and safety of amantadine (AMT) and rimantadine (RMT) for preventing and treating influenza A in adults has been systematically reviewed. However, little is known about these treatments in children and the elderly. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of AMT and RMT in preventing and treating influenza A in children and the elderly. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to June week 3, 2011) and EMBASE (1980 to June 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing AMT and/or RMT with placebo, control, other antivirals or different doses or schedules of AMT or RMT, or both, or no intervention, in children and the elderly. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and assessed methodological quality. We resolved disagreements by consensus. In all comparisons except for one, we separately analysed the trials in children and the elderly using Review Manager software. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 12 studies involving 2494 participants (1586 children and adolescents and 908 elderly) compared AMT and RMT with placebo, paracetamol (one trial; 69 children) or zanamivir (two trials; 545 seniors). All studies were RCTs but most were still susceptible to bias. Two trials in the elderly had a high risk of bias because of incomplete outcome data. In one of those trials there was also a lack of outcome assessment blinding. Risk of bias was unclear in 10 studies due to unclear random sequence generation and allocation concealment. Only two trials in children were considered to have a low risk of bias.AMT was effective in preventing influenza A in children. A total of 773 participants were included in this outcome (risk ratio (RR) 0.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.30). The assumed risk of influenza in the control group was 10 per 100 and the corresponding risk in the RMT group was one per 100 (95% CI 0 to 3). The quality of the evidence was considered low. For treatment purposes, RMT was beneficial for abating fever on day three of treatment. For this purpose one study was selected with low risk of bias and included 69 children (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.91). The assumed risk was 38 per 100 and the corresponding risk in the RMT group was 14 per 100, 95% CI 5 to 34. The quality of the evidence was moderate.RMT did not show a prophylactic effect against influenza in the elderly, but the quality of evidence was considered very low. There were 103 participants (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.14 to 1.41, for an assumed risk of 17 per 100 and a corresponding risk in the RMT group of 7 per 100, 95% CI 2 to 23). We did not identify any AMT trials in the elderly that met our inclusion criteria.There was no evidence of adverse effects of AMT and RMT in children or an adverse effect of RMT in the elderly. We did not identify any AMT trials in the elderly that met our inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: AMT is effective in preventing influenza A in children but the NNTB is high (NNTB: 12 (95% CI 9 to 17). RMT probably helps the abatement of fever on day three of treatment, but the quality of the evidence is poor. Due to the small number of available studies, we could not reach a definitive conclusion on the safety of AMT or the effectiveness of RMT in preventing influenza in children and the elderly.

Description of antiviral treatment among adults hospitalized with influenza before and during the 2009 pandemic: United States, 2005-2009.

BACKGROUND: The 2009 influenza pandemic led to guidelines emphasizing antiviral treatment for all persons hospitalized with influenza, including pregnant women. We compared antiviral use among adults hospitalized with influenza before and during the pandemic. METHODS: The Emerging Infections Program conducts active population-based surveillance for persons hospitalized with community-acquired, laboratory-confirmed influenza in 10 states. We analyzed data collected via medical record review of patients aged ≥18 years admitted during prepandemic (1 October 2005 through 14 April 2009) and pandemic (15 April 2009 through 31 December 2009) time frames. RESULTS: Of 5943 adults hospitalized with influenza in prepandemic seasons, 3235 (54%) received antiviral treatment, compared with 4055 (82%) of 4966 during the pandemic. Forty-one (22%) of 187 pregnant women received antiviral treatment in prepandemic seasons, compared with 369 (86%) of 430 during the pandemic. Pregnancy was a negative predictor of antiviral treatment before the pandemic (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], .16-.35) but was independently associated with treatment during the pandemic (aOR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.32-2.96). Antiviral treatment among adults hospitalized >2 days after illness onset increased from 43% before the pandemic to 79% during the pandemic (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Antiviral treatment of hospitalized adults increased during the pandemic, especially among pregnant women. This suggests that many clinicians followed published guidance to treat hospitalized adults with antiviral agents. However, compliance with antiviral recommendations could be improved.

[The specific features of the cocirculation of influenza viruses in the 2010-2011 postpandemic period according to the results of activities of the D. I. Ivanovsky Research Institute of Virology, Ministry of Health and Social Development of Russia].

The paper gives the results of monitoring the circulation of influenza viruses in the 2010-2011 season, that covers the second year of circulation of pandemic A(H1N1)v virus strains, and their interaction with seasonal A (H3N2) and B strains. Unlike the previous season, the beginning of an increase in morbidity was recorded in January 2011; its peak in the most of contiguous areas was noted at 5-7 weeks of 2011, with its further decline to threshold levels at week 11 of 2011. Preschool and school children were most involved in the epidemic process. Three influenza virus strains (A(H1N1)v, A(H3N2), and B) were found to circulate. Differences were found in the level of participation of the isolated strains in individual areas of the Russian Federation. Detailed typing of the isolated strains determined the compliance of the vast majority of them with vaccine viruses. The pandemic influenza A(H1N1)v virus strains retained their susceptibility to oseltamivir and were resistant to rimantadine. The participation of non-influenza acute respiratory viral infection pathogens was estimated as follows: 11.9% for parainfluenza viruses, 5.9% for adenoviruses, and 3.5% for PC viruses, and 0.7% for pneumonia Mycoplasma, which was comparable with the previous epidemic seasons.

Repurposing potential of rimantadine hydrochloride and development of a promising platinum(II)-rimantadine metallodrug for the treatment of Chikungunya virus infection.

Most of the patients infected with Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) develop chronic manifestations characterized by pain and deformity in joints, impacting their quality of life. The aminoadamantanes, in their turn, have been exploited due to their biological activities, with amantadine and memantine recently described with anti-CHIKV activities. Here we evaluated the antiviral activity of rimantadine hydrochloride (rtdH), a well-known antiviral agent against influenza A, its platinum complex (Pt-rtd), and the precursor cis-[PtCl2(dmso)2], against CHIKV infection in vitro. The rtdH demonstrated significant antiviral activity in all stages of CHIKV replication (29% in pre-treatment; 57% in early stages of infection; 60% in post-entry stages). The Pt-rtd complex protected the cells against infection in 92%, inhibited 100% of viral entry, mainly by a virucidal effect, and impaired 60% of post-entry stages. Alternatively, cis-[PtCl2(dmso)2] impaired viral entry in 100% and post-entry steps in 60%, but had no effect in protecting cells when administered prior to CHIKV infection. Collectively, the obtained data demonstrated that rtdH and Pt-rtd significantly interfered in the early stages of CHIKV life cycle, with the strongest effect observed to Pt-rtd complex, which reduced up to 100% of CHIKV infection. Moreover, molecular docking analysis and infrared spectroscopy data (ATR-FTIR) suggest an interaction of Pt-rtd with CHIKV glycoproteins, potentially related to the mechanism of inhibition of viral entry by Pt-rtd. Through a migration retardation assay, it was also shown that Pt-rtd and cis-[PtCl2(dmso)2] interacted with the dsRNA in 87% and 100%, respectively. The obtained results highlight the repurposing potential of rtdH as an anti-CHIKV drug, as well as the synthesis of promising platinum(II) metallodrugs with potential application for the treatment of CHIKV infections. Importance Chikungunya fever is a disease that can result in persistent symptoms due to the chronic infection process. Infected patients can develop physical disability, resulting and high costs to the health system and significant impacts on the quality of life of affected individuals. Additionally, there are no licensed vaccines or antivirals against the Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) and the virus is easily transmitted due to the abundance of viable vectors in epidemic regions. In this context, our study highlights the repurposing potential of the commercial drug rimantadine hydrochloride (rtdH) as an antiviral agent for the treatment of CHIKV infections. Moreover, our data demonstrated that a platinum(II)-rimantadine metallodrug (Pt-rtd) poses as a potent anti-CHIKV molecule with potential application for the treatment of Chikungunya fever. Altogether, rtdH and Pt-rtd significantly interfered in the early stages of CHIKV life cycle, reducing up to 100% of CHIKV infection in vitro.

[Influenza : clinical symptoms, diagnostics and therapy]. / Influenza : Klinische Symptome, Diagnostik und Therapie.

Influenza infections have important socio-economic consequences. Risk groups identified so far include small children and elderly adults with comorbidities. In recent years in addition to seasonal influenza an outbreak of avian influenza occurred in 2005 and the new H1N1 pandemic occurred in 2009. For the latter other at risk groups were affected and a different clinical course has been documented. The focus of this article is to give an overview on the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, diagnosis and therapy of influenza infections.

[New adamantane derivatives and ways of overcoming the resistance of influenza A viruses to rimantadine and amantadine].

The amino acid and peptide derivatives of 1-adamantane carboxylic acid and rimantadine (18 compounds) have been first synthesized and investigated for their activity against influenza A virus (H1N1, H1N1v). In a series of obtained adamantine derivatives, some compounds have been found to be able to inhibit rimantadine-resistant influenza A virus strains. Thus, the antiviral properties of rimantadine can be restored.

[Information of the Center for Ecology and Epidemiology of Influenza, D. I. Ivanovsky Research Institute of Virology, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, on the results of the 2009-2010 influenza and acute respiratory viral infection epidemic season (at week 40 of 2009 to week 22 of 2010) in the world and Russia].

The paper describes the specific features of the 2009-2010 epidemic season in Russia and the world, which are due to the wide spread of a new pandemic strain of influenza A(H1N1)v virus. There is an unusual early upsurge in the incidence of influenza and acute respiratory viral infection (ARVI) (in October-November 2009) with its peak at weeks 45 to 48 of the year with a succeeding reduction to the seasonal values by its end. The circulation of influenza B virus strains was recorded in February-April 2010, which was responsible for the higher epidemic thresholds of morbidity in a number of Russia's regions. A study of the antigenic properties of the strains defined their relationship to the reference strains A/California/07/2009 (H1N1)v and B/Brisbene/60/2008. There were strains with amino acid substitutions at position 222 of hemagglutinin in the population of pandemic influenza A(H1N1)v virus. The strains of the new pandemic influenza A(H1N1)v virus were resistant to remantadine and susceptible to oseltamivir, zanamivir, and arbidol. The influenza B virus strains were susceptible to oseltamivir, zanamivir, and arbidol. The proportion of pathogens of some ARVIs was as follows: parainfluenza viruses, 9.8%; adenoviruses, 5.5%; respiratory syncytial virus, 4.8%; and Mycoplasma pneumonia, 0.6%. There is evidence that there is a need for further monitoring of influenza viruses in Russia.

[Susceptibility of pandemic influenza virus A 2009 H1N1 and highly pathogenic avian influenza virus A H5N1 to antiinfluenza agents in cell culture].

The data on cytotoxicity and antiviral activity of commercial antivirals, such as Remantadine, Oseltamivir, Arbidol and Ribavirin in the MDCK cell culture infected with highly pathogenic (H5N1) and pandemic 2009 (H1N1) influenza A viruses are presented. The study of the antiviral activity of antivirals in the MDCK cells culture demonstrated that Arbidol, Rimantadine and Ribavirin efficiently inhibited reproduction of the highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza viruses isolated from sick birds. Arbidol and Oseltamivir carboxylate selectively inhibited reproduction of the pandemic 2009 H1N1 influenza A viruses with changed specificity to the cell receptors, causing severe influenza in men, while remantadine had no effect on their reproduction.

[Research progress of anti-influenza virus agents].

Influenza is a major threat to millions of people worldwide. Vaccines and antiviral agents are two main options available to reduce the impact of the influenza virus, while anti-influenza agents are the most effective means to prevent the transmission of the highly contagious virus and to treat the epidemics of disease. At present, four anti-influenza agents have been approved by the FDA for the treatment of influenza, including two M2 protein ion channel inhibitors-amantadine and rimantadine and two neuraminidase inhibitors-zanamivir and oseltamivir. Arbidol hydrochloride, launched in Russia, is a potent inhibitor of influenza virus, too. Neuraminidase inhibitors could be classified generally by structure into six different kinds: sialic acid derivatives, benzoic acid derivatives, cyclohexene derivatives, cyclopentane derivatives, pyrrolidine derivatives and natural products. In this paper, recent progress in the research of the action mechanisms and structure-activity relationships of these anti-influenza virus agents were reviewed.

[Study of the antiviral activity of Russian anti-influenza agents in cell culture and animal models].

The study of the antiviral activity of Russian anti-influenza agents in the cultured MDCK cells demonstrated that arbidol and ribavirin inhibited the reproduction of various influenza A virus strains, including rimantadine- and ozeltamivir-resistant variants, as well as influenza B viruses (IC50 2-8.5 microg/ml). Rimantadine at concentrations of 1-5 microg/ml completely inhibited the reproduction of reference and ozeltamivir-resistant influenza A virus strains, and it had no effect on the reproduction of influenza B viruses and rimantadine-resistant influenza A viruses. Arbidol and ribavirin also inhibited the reproduction of pandemic influenza A/California/04/2009(H1N1), A/California/07/2009(H1N1), and A/Moscow/01/2009(H1N1)swl viruses in the cultured MDCK cells (IC50 = 1.5-4.0 microg/ml) while rimantadine had no effect on their reproduction. The cultured cells showed no significant antiviral activity of ingavirin at nontoxic concentrations (up to 200 microg/ml) against all study strains of influenza A and B viruses, including pandemic A(H1N1) influenza virus strains. The activity of rimantadine, arbidol, and ingavirin was found on a model of Influenza pneumonia in mice infected with their adopted influenza A/Aichi/2/69(H3N2) virus. The preventive efficacy of the three test agents was similar and most pronounced when they were used 96 hours before infection, by preventing 40-50% death in the animals and their body weight loss and by increasing their survival by 1.3-1.5 times. Arbidol and rimantadine were more effective when used for treatment and prophylaxis in doses of 30 and 10 mg/kg/day, respectively, by protecting the infected animals from 60-80% death, increasing their survival by 1.7-2 times, and preventing their body weight loss as compared with the control. The same experiments with ingavirin showed that this agent was less effective than arbidol and rimantadine. Thus, arbidol and rimantadine have a pronounced antiviral infection in both cell culture and a model of influenza pneumonia. The found efficacy of ingavirin on an integral model of murine influenza pneumonia without its activity in the cultured cells is likely to be due to other pharmacological properties of the drug rather than its direct virus-specific action.

[In vivo efficacy of Ingavirin against pandemic A (H1N1/09)v influenza virus].

Ingavirin was shown to be efficient in inhibition of the pandemic influenza virus strains A/California/04/2009 (H1N1)v, A/California/07/2009 (H1N1)v, A/Moscow/225/2009 (H1N1)v and A/Moscow/226/2009 (H1N1)v. as well as the influenza virus strain A/Aichi/2/68 (H3N2) in the lungs of the infected mice. After oral administration of Ingavirin the titers of the influenza virus strains in the lung homogenates lowered.

HPV16 E5 Mediates Resistance to PD-L1 Blockade and Can Be Targeted with Rimantadine in Head and Neck Cancer.

There is a critical need to understand mechanisms of resistance and to develop combinatorial strategies to improve responses to checkpoint blockade immunotherapy (CBI). Here, we uncover a novel mechanism by which the human papillomavirus (HPV) inhibits the activity of CBI in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Using orthotopic HNSCC models, we show that radiation combined with anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy significantly enhanced local control, CD8+ memory T cells, and induced preferential T-cell homing via modulation of vascular endothelial cells. However, the HPV E5 oncoprotein suppressed immune responses by downregulating expression of major histocompatibility complex and interfering with antigen presentation in murine models and patient tumors. Furthermore, tumors expressing HPV E5 were rendered entirely resistant to anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy, and patients with high expression of HPV16 E5 had worse survival. The antiviral E5 inhibitor rimantadine demonstrated remarkable single-agent antitumor activity. This is the first report that describes HPV E5 as a mediator of resistance to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy and demonstrates the antitumor activity of rimantadine. These results have broad clinical relevance beyond HNSCC to other HPV-associated malignancies and reveal a powerful mechanism of HPV-mediated immunosuppression, which can be exploited to improve response rates to checkpoint blockade. SIGNIFICANCE: This study identifies a novel mechanism of resistance to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy mediated by HPV E5, which can be exploited using the HPV E5 inhibitor rimantadine to improve outcomes for head and neck cancer patients. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/canres/80/4/732/F1.large.jpg.

Genotype-dependent sensitivity of hepatitis C virus to inhibitors of the p7 ion channel.

UNLABELLED: The hepatitis C virus (HCV) p7 protein plays a critical role during particle formation in cell culture and is required for virus replication in chimpanzees. The discovery that it displayed cation channel activity in vitro led to its classification within the "viroporin" family of virus-coded ion channel proteins, which includes the influenza A virus (IAV) M2 protein. Like M2, p7 was proposed as a potential target for much needed new HCV therapies, and this was supported by our finding that the M2 inhibitor, amantadine, blocked its activity in vitro. Since then, further compounds have been shown to inhibit p7 function but the relationship between inhibitory effects in vitro and efficacy against infectious virus is controversial. Here, we have sought to validate multiple p7 inhibitor compounds using a parallel approach combining the HCV infectious culture system and a rapid throughput in vitro assay for p7 function. We identify a genotype-dependent and subtype-dependent sensitivity of HCV to p7 inhibitors, in which results in cell culture largely mirror the sensitivity of recombinant protein in vitro; thus building separate sensitivity profiles for different p7 sequences. Inhibition of virus entry also occurred, suggesting that p7 may be a virion component. Second site effects on both cellular and viral processes were identified for several compounds in addition to their efficacy against p7 in vitro. Nevertheless, for some compounds antiviral effects were specific to a block of ion channel function. CONCLUSION: These data validate p7 inhibitors as prototype therapies for chronic HCV disease. (HEPATOLOGY 2008;48:1779-1790.).

Antiviral chemotherapy and chemoprophylaxis.

Antiviral compounds have been developed for use in chemoprophylaxis and chemotherapy of a variety of infections in humans, including those caused by influenza viruses, respiratory syncytial virus, and herpesviruses. The efficacy of several of these compounds has been demonstrated in rigorously controlled trials. Advances in molecular virology have led to the identification of biochemically defined, virus-specific functions that serve as appropriate targets for the future development of antiviral compounds. Clinical investigators and practicing physicians are now confronting questions previously raised with the use of antibacterial antibiotics. These questions concern appropriate routes of administration for antiviral compounds, optimal dosage regimens, risks of long-term prophylaxis, and the emergence of resistant organisms.

Update: influenza activity - United States, August 30-October 31, 2009.

The 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus emerged in the United States in April 2009 and has since spread worldwide. Influenza activity resulting from this virus occurred throughout the summer and, by late August, activity had begun to increase in the southeastern United States. Since August, activity has increased in all regions of the United States. As of the week ending October 31, nearly all states were reporting widespread disease. Since April 2009, pandemic H1N1 has remained the dominant circulating influenza strain. This report summarizes U.S. influenza activity from August 30, 2009, defined as the beginning of the 2009-10 influenza season, through October 31, 2009.