Lessons from resistance analysis in clinical trials of IV zanamivir.

Influenza infection causes substantial morbidity and mortality during seasonal epidemics and pandemics. Antivirals, including neuraminidase inhibitors, play an important role in the treatment of severely ill patients infected with influenza. Resistance is a key factor that can affect the efficacy of neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs). It is a recommendation by regulatory authorities to monitor for resistance during the development of anti-influenza medications. An additional requirement by regulators is to examine amino acid sequences for minority species harbouring resistance substitutions. In a Phase III study of intravenous (IV) zanamivir respiratory samples were analysed for the presence of resistant quasi species using Next Generation Sequencing (NGS). In this study ten resistance substitutions, two of which were treatment emergent, were detected by NGS that otherwise would not have been detectable by Sanger sequencing. None of the substitutions were present at any other timepoints analysed. The effect these mutations have on clinical response is difficult to characterize; in fact, all patients from which these variants were isolated had a successful clinical outcome and the effect on clinical response was therefore likely minimal. Although NGS is becoming a routine method for nucleic acid sequencing and will detect substitutions previously undetected by Sanger sequencing, the value of this technique in identifying minority species with resistance substitutions that are clinically meaningful remains to be demonstrated, particularly with acute infections such as influenza.

Population Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Analysis of Intravenous Zanamivir in Healthy Adults and Hospitalized Adult and Pediatric Subjects With Influenza.

Zanamivir is a potent and highly selective inhibitor of influenza neuraminidase in which the inhibition of this enzyme prevents the virus from infecting other cells and specifically prevents release of the new virion from the host cell membrane. It is available as an oral powder for inhalation and intravenous formulations. The current population pharmacokinetic model based on data from eight studies of subjects treated with the intravenous formulation (125 healthy adults and 533 hospitalized adult and pediatric subjects with suspected or confirmed influenza) suggested a decreased zanamivir clearance in pediatric and renal impairment adult subjects. It also indicates that b.i.d. dosing is necessary to keep the exposure in influenza infected subjects above the 90% inhibitory concentration values of recently circulating viruses over the dosing interval. In the exposure-response analysis (phases II and III studies), no apparent relationship was found between zanamivir exposure and clinically relevant pharmacodynamic end points.

Intravenous zanamivir or oral oseltamivir for hospitalised patients with influenza: an international, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Neuraminidase inhibitors are effective for the treatment of acute uncomplicated influenza. However, there is an unmet need for intravenous treatment for patients admitted to hospital with severe influenza. We studied whether intravenous zanamivir was a suitable treatment in this setting. METHODS: In this international, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients aged 16 years or older with severe influenza admitted to 97 hospitals from 26 countries. We randomly assigned patients (1:1:1 stratified by symptom onset ≤4 days or 5-6 days) to receive 300 mg or 600 mg intravenous zanamivir, or standard-of-care (75 mg oral oseltamivir) twice a day for 5-10 days; patients were followed up for 28 days. The randomisation schedule, including stratification, was generated using GlaxoSmithKline's RandAll software. Patients, site study staff, and sponsor were masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was time to clinical response-a composite of vital sign stabilisation and hospital discharge-in the influenza-positive population. The trial was powered to show an improvement of 1·5 days or greater with 600 mg intravenous zanamivir. Pharmacokinetic, safety, and virology endpoints were also assessed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01231620. FINDINGS: Between Jan 15, 2011, and Feb 12, 2015, 626 patients were randomly assigned to receive 300 mg intravenous zanamivir (n=201), 600 mg intravenous zanamivir (n=209), or 75 mg oral oseltamivir (n=205) twice a day; 11 patients discontinued the study before receiving any study treatment. 488 (78%) of 626 patients had laboratory-confirmed influenza. Compared with a median time to clinical response of 5·14 days in the 600 mg intravenous zanamivir group, the median time to clinical response was 5·87 days (difference of -0·73 days, 95% CI -1·79 to 0·75; p=0·25) in the 300 mg intravenous zanamivir group and 5·63 days (difference of -0·48 days, 95% CI -2·11 to 0·97; p=0·39) in the oseltamivir group. Four patients with influenza A/H1N1pdm09 in the oseltamivir group developed H275Y resistance mutations. Adverse events were reported in 373 (61%) of treated patients and were similar across treatment groups; the most common adverse events (300 mg intravenous zanamivir, 600 mg intravenous zanamivir, oseltamivir) were diarrhoea (10 [5%], 15 [7%], 14 [7%]), respiratory failure (11 [5%], 14 [7%], 11 [5%]), and constipation (7 [3%], 13 [6%], 10 [5%]). 41 (7%) treated patients died during the study (15 [7%], 15 [7%], 11 [5%]); the most common causes of death were respiratory failure and septic shock. INTERPRETATION: Time to clinical response to intravenous zanamivir dosed at 600 mg was not superior to oseltamivir or 300 mg intravenous zanamivir. All treatments had a similar safety profile in hospitalised patients with severe influenza. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Source strengths, transport pathways and delivery mechanisms of nutrients, suspended solids and coliforms within a small agricultural headwater catchment.

Analysis of water samples and accompanying flow data collected (on ~100 occasions) from well defined land drain outlets located in a small catchment in NE Scotland were made over a five year period. The complex relationship between individual sources that can exist even within a small (200 ha) agriculturally managed headwater catchment was clearly evident. On average ~60% of the measured flow from the catchment outlet was accounted for, with ~50% originating from field drains and 10% from the farmyard. Certain field drains stopped flowing during the summer. Flow from the farmyard was continuous, and because livestock were present all year round also represented a renewable source of potential contaminants. The majority of nitrate and suspended sediment originated directly from field drainage. The variability in nitrate concentration between individual field drains was large and probably reflected differences in soil drainage properties. Farmyard drainage contributed a large proportion of the ammonium, phosphate and Faecal Indicator Organisms (FIO) measured as a flux from the catchment. On numerous sampling occasions the combined flux from individual sources was greater than the corresponding loss measured at the catchment outlet. This was attributed to result from the temporary storage/retention mechanisms (sedimentation, transformation or biological uptake/exchange) that can operate within the stream channel. Despite many fields being grazed and/or receiving regular applications of slurry/manure, the majority ~60% of the total flux of FIO still originated from the 'farmyard', with significant contributions from the field drains only occurring during the autumn. The presence of field drinkers and secure well maintained fencing denying cattle access to the open drainage channel (often a recommended best management practice) may well have contributed to this observation. Benefits to water quality that might arise from riparian management, such as buffer strips in this particular situation may be limited due to the dominant contribution originating from land drains and farmyard.

Once-daily valacyclovir to reduce the risk of transmission of genital herpes.

BACKGROUND: Nucleoside analogues against herpes simplex virus (HSV) have been shown to suppress shedding of HSV type 2 (HSV-2) on genital mucosal surfaces and may prevent sexual transmission of HSV. METHODS: We followed 1484 immunocompetent, heterosexual, monogamous couples: one with clinically symptomatic genital HSV-2 and one susceptible to HSV-2. The partners with HSV-2 infection were randomly assigned to receive either 500 mg of valacyclovir once daily or placebo for eight months. The susceptible partner was evaluated monthly for clinical signs and symptoms of genital herpes. Source partners were followed for recurrences of genital herpes; 89 were enrolled in a substudy of HSV-2 mucosal shedding. Both partners were counseled on safer sex and were offered condoms at each visit. The predefined primary end point was the reduction in transmission of symptomatic genital herpes. RESULTS: Clinically symptomatic HSV-2 infection developed in 4 of 743 susceptible partners who were given valacyclovir, as compared with 16 of 741 who were given placebo (hazard ratio, 0.25; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.08 to 0.75; P=0.008). Overall, acquisition of HSV-2 was observed in 14 of the susceptible partners who received valacyclovir (1.9 percent), as compared with 27 (3.6 percent) who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.27 to 0.99; P=0.04). HSV DNA was detected in samples of genital secretions on 2.9 percent of the days among the HSV-2-infected (source) partners who received valacyclovir, as compared with 10.8 percent of the days among those who received placebo (P<0.001). The mean rates of recurrence were 0.11 per month and 0.40 per month, respectively (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily suppressive therapy with valacyclovir significantly reduces the risk of transmission of genital herpes among heterosexual, HSV-2-discordant couples.