Association between anaphylaxis and anti-influenza drug use: An analysis of the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database.

We aimed to investigate the association between anaphylaxis and anti-influenza drug use using the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report (JADER) database, a national spontaneous reporting database in Japan. We surveyed registered cases from the JADER database between April 2004 and November 2019. The target drugs were five anti-influenza drugs, namely oseltamivir, zanamivir, peramivir, laninamivir, and baloxavir. Adverse events associated with anaphylaxis, "anaphylactic reaction," "anaphylactic shock," "anaphylactoid reaction," and "anaphylactoid shock," were evaluated. The association between anaphylaxis and anti-influenza drug use was assessed by calculating the reporting odds ratio (ROR) and information component (IC) as a measure of disproportionality. Signals were considered positive if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of ROR was > 1, and that of IC was > 0. The number of anaphylaxis cases associated with anti-influenza drug use was 199 (0.9%). Signals were detected for inhaled laninamivir (ROR: 4.24 [95% CI: 3.06-5.88], IC: 1.83 [1.35-2.30]), intravenous peramivir (ROR: 2.97 [2.11-4.17], IC: 1.40 [0.90-1.89]), and oral baloxavir (ROR: 3.05 [2.22-4.18], IC: 1.44 [0.98-1.90]). Conversely, signals were not detected for oral oseltamivir or inhaled zanamivir. Although zanamivir and laninamivir were used as dry powder inhalers containing lactose as an additive, they differed in terms of signal detection. Our analysis indicated that the signal of anaphylaxis may varies based on the main component or dosage form of each anti-influenza drug. Appropriate use of these drugs is essential to prevent anaphylaxis and improve health status.

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 preventing and treating influenza in children.

BACKGROUND: During epidemics, influenza attack rates in children may exceed 40%. Options for prevention and treatment currently include the neuraminidase inhibitors zanamivir and oseltamivir. Laninamivir octanoate, the prodrug of laninamivir, is currently being developed. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of neuraminidase inhibitors in the treatment and prevention of influenza in children. SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1) which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to January week 2, 2011) and EMBASE (January 2010 to January 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing neuraminidase inhibitors with placebo or other antiviral drugs in children aged up to and including 12 years. We also included safety and tolerability data from other types of studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors selected studies, assessed study quality and extracted data for the current and previous versions of this review. We analysed data separately for oseltamivir versus placebo, zanamivir versus placebo and laninamivir octanoate versus oseltamivir. MAIN RESULTS: Six treatment trials involving 1906 children with clinical influenza and 450 children with influenza diagnosed on rapid near-patient influenza testing were included. Of these 2356 children, 1255 had laboratory-confirmed influenza. Three prophylaxis trials involving 863 children exposed to influenza were also included. In children with laboratory-confirmed influenza oseltamivir reduced median duration of illness by 36 hours (26%, P < 0.001). One trial of oseltamivir in children with asthma who had laboratory-confirmed influenza showed only a small reduction in illness duration (10.4 hours, 8%), which was not statistically significant (P = 0.542). Laninamivir octanoate 20 mg reduced symptom duration by 2.8 days (60%, P < 0.001) in children with oseltamivir-resistant influenza A/H1N1. Zanamivir reduced median duration of illness by 1.3 days (24%, P < 0.001). Oseltamivir significantly reduced acute otitis media in children aged one to five years with laboratory-confirmed influenza (risk difference (RD) -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.24 to -0.04). Prophylaxis with either zanamivir or oseltamivir was associated with an 8% absolute reduction in developing influenza after the introduction of a case into a household (RD -0.08, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.05, P < 0.001). The adverse event profile of zanamivir was no worse than placebo but vomiting was more commonly associated with oseltamivir (number needed to harm = 17, 95% CI 10 to 34). The adverse event profiles of laninamivir octanoate and oseltamivir were similar. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oseltamivir and zanamivir appear to have modest benefit in reducing duration of illness in children with influenza. However, our analysis was limited by small sample sizes and an inability to pool data from different studies. Oseltamivir reduces the incidence of acute otitis media in children aged one to five years but is associated with a significantly increased risk of vomiting. One study demonstrated that laninamivir octanoate was more effective than oseltamivir in shortening duration of illness in children with oseltamivir-resistant influenza A/H1N1. The benefit of oseltamivir and zanamivir in preventing the transmission of influenza in households is modest and based on weak evidence. However, the clinical efficacy of neuraminidase inhibitors in 'at risk' children is still uncertain. Larger high-quality trials are needed with sufficient power to determine the efficacy of neuraminidase inhibitors in preventing serious complications of influenza (such as pneumonia or hospital admission), particularly in 'at risk' groups.

Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in children.

BACKGROUND: During epidemic years, influenza attack rates in children exceed 40%. Options for prevention and treatment include the neuraminidase inhibitors: zanamivir and oseltamivir. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of neuraminidase inhibitors in the treatment and prevention of influenza infection in children. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2005); MEDLINE (1966 to April 2005); EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2004); the on-line GlaxoSmithKline Clinical Trials Register; the on-line Roche Clinical Trial Protocol Registry and Clinical Trial Results Database (August 2005); and reference lists of articles. We also scrutinised web sites of European and US regulatory bodies and contacted manufacturers and authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, randomised, controlled trials comparing neuraminidase inhibitors with placebo or other antiviral drugs in children less than 12 years of age. Additional safety and tolerability data from other sources were also included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four authors applied the inclusion criteria to the retrieved studies, assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data were analysed separately for oseltamivir and zanamivir. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials involving 1500 children with a clinical case definition of influenza were included, of whom 977 had laboratory-confirmed influenza. Overall, trial quality was good. Oseltamivir reduced the median duration of illness by 26% (36 hours) in healthy children with laboratory-confirmed influenza (P value less than 0.0001). The reduction was only 7.7% (10 hours) in 'at risk' (asthmatic) children, and this did not reach statistical significance (P value = 0.54). Zanamivir reduced the median duration of illness by 24% (1.25 days) in healthy children with laboratory-confirmed influenza (P value less than 0.001). No data in 'at risk' children were available. Only oseltamivir produced a significant reduction in the complications of influenza (particularly otitis media), although there was a trend to benefit for zanamivir. We identified one randomised, controlled trial of oseltamivir for the prevention of influenza transmission in households, reporting data from 222 paediatric contacts. Where index cases had laboratory-confirmed influenza, a protective efficacy of 55% was observed, but this did not reach statistical significance (P value = 0.089). The adverse events profile of zanamivir was no worse than placebo, but vomiting was more common in children treated with oseltamivir. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Neuraminidase inhibitors are effective in shortening illness duration in healthy children with influenza, but efficacy in 'at risk' children remains to be proven. Oseltamivir is also effective in reducing the incidence of secondary complications, and may be effective for influenza prophylaxis.

Safety of neuraminidase inhibitors for influenza.

Neuraminidase inhibitors, oseltamivir and zanamivir, are used for the treatment of, and protection from, influenza. The safety of these compounds has been assessed in systematic reviews. However, the data presented are somewhat limited by the paucity of good quality adverse event data available. The majority of safety outcomes are based on evidence from just one or two randomised controlled trials. The results of the systematic reviews suggest that neuraminidase inhibitors have a reasonable side effect and adverse effect profile if they are to be used to treat or protect patients against a life-threatening disease. However, if these compounds are to be prescribed in situations in which avoidance of inconvenience or minor discomfort is hoped for, then the balance of harms to benefits will be more difficult to judge.

Antiviral drugs in influenza: an adjunct to vaccination in some situations.

(1) Influenza is a common acute respiratory disease due to a virus that causes annual seasonal epidemics. Three major pandemics occurred in the 20th century, in 1918-1919, 1957 and 1968, mainly due to genetic variants of type A influenza virus. (2) In temperate regions the incidence of hospitalisation increases during annual influenza epidemics. More than 90% of deaths linked to influenza involve people over 65 years of age. (3) The clinical manifestations of influenza virus infection are non specific. The main complications are secondary bacterial respiratory tract infections (especially pneumonia); those most at risk are people over 65, infants less than one year old, and people with underlying chronic disorders (pulmonary, cardiac, renal or metabolic) or immune deficiencies. (4) Vaccination is the main preventive measure. During most years the vaccine strain closely matches the epidemic strain. In relative terms, vaccination of people over 65 reduces the number of deaths linked to influenza by about 80%, hospitalisation and pneumonia by about 50%, and symptomatic influenza by about 30%. Yearly vaccination is recommended for younger people with serious chronic disease. (5) Three antiviral drugs are currently approved in France for prevention or treatment of influenza: amantadine and the neuraminidase inhibitors zanamivir and oseltamivir. (6) Efficacy of antiviral drugs has not been evaluated in comparative randomised trials in which death and influenza complications were the primary outcome measures. (7) A systematic review of 20 comparative randomised trials involving about 2500 healthy people showed that amantadine reduced the frequency of flu-like syndromes by about 7% in absolute terms (26.3% versus 33.1% with placebo). Zanamivir and oseltamivir have only been shown to reduce the frequency of serologically confirmed episodes of influenza (0.4% to 2.5%, compared to 4.4% to 14.9% with placebo). (8) In a randomised placebo-controlled trial of oseltamivir, involving 548 institutionalised subjects over 65 years of age, more than 80% of whom had been vaccinated, respiratory tract infections were less frequent in the oseltamivir group, but the relevance of this result is undermined by the small number of observed cases. (9) Efficacy of antiviral drugs on avian influenza (bird flu) was studied during a 2003 Dutch outbreak due to a type A/H7N7 virus. Among the 38 exposed persons who were treated, about 3% developed symptoms, compared with about 10% of 52 exposed persons who refused treatment (p = 0.38). The low statistical power and the lack of randomisation rule out any firm conclusions on preventive effects. (10) The three antiviral drugs have different profiles of adverse effects and drug interactions. Amantadine carries a risk of neuropsychological, atropinic and dopaminergic adverse effects, and can interact with drugs that have similar effects. Zanamivir carries a risk of life-threatening bronchospasm. Oseltamivir was approved relatively recently and its full spectrum of adverse effects is not yet known; its main adverse effects appear to be mild gastrointestinal disturbances, although a few cases of serious cutaneous reactions have been reported. (11) In vitro resistance to the three drugs has been demonstrated, but the possible clinical and epidemiological consequences are unclear. (12) In situations warranting antiviral therapy for the prevention of influenza, oseltamivir, at a dose of 75 mg/day for 10 days, is the drug with the best risk-benefit balance. Its use should be limited to situations where a major potential benefit exists in order to avoid selection for resistant strains. (13) Testing of oseltamivir in children is limited. Oseltamivir should be avoided during pregnancy, because of evidence that it may harm the unborn child. (14) In practice, the use of antiviral drugs in otherwise healthy adults and children is not generally recommended. (15) Despite the lack of convincing data regarding the efficacy of oseltamivir in preventing complications of influenza, its effect on documented infections suggests it may be useful for unvaccinated individuals who are at high risk of infection and severe complications. Under these conditions, treatment should be started within 48 hours after contact with a person who has flu-like symptoms during a seasonal epidemic; residents in institutions in which influenza cases occur may also qualify for preventive treatment. Other preventive measures should also be used, including immediate vaccination, case isolation, use of face masks, and more frequent hand washing. (16) During seasonal influenza epidemics due to viral strains against which the current vaccine is of limited effectiveness, the utility, target populations and optimal duration of preventive antiviral treatment must be determined by examining the groups most at risk and the severity of complications. (17) Most flu-like syndromes are not due to the influenza virus, and the preventive effect of antiviral drugs on complications in persons at risk has not yet been demonstrated. (18) In practice, antiviral drugs are not an alternative to influenza vaccination, but may be a useful adjunct in some situations. It is best to limit their use to short-term prophylaxis of vulnerable persons in situations where the risk of contracting influenza virus infection is high.

[Anti-virals for influenza virus infection].

Dramatic advances in the diagnosis and treatment of influenza in Japan has been made in recent years. Rapid diagnosis tests for influenza are routinely performed in Japanese hospitals. Both zanamivir and oseltamivir have been approved for the treatment of influenza since 2001, in addition to amantadine. Japan has the highest figure of neuraminidase inhibitor-use in the world because the treatment of influenza with neuraminidase inhibitors is covered by Japan's National Health Insurance program. Therefore, we should carefully observe the appearance of resistance strains and side effects to neuraminidase inhibitors.

A side effect of neuraminidase inhibitor in a patient with liver cirrhosis.

Neuraminidase inhibitors have been widely used in Japan since 2001, and several side-effects of their use have been reported. However, erythema toxicum has rarely been described as a side-effect of these drugs in patients with liver function disorder. Here, we report a case of generalized rash after treatment with the neuraminidase inhibitors zanamivir and oseltamivir administered prophylactically to prevent influenza infection in two patients with hepatoma associated with liver cirrhosis.

Is sialic acid an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease? A 17-year follow-up study in Busselton, Western Australia.

PURPOSE: To investigate the relationship between serum sialic acid level and risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke in men and women without diagnosed cardiovascular disease. METHODS: A prospective case-cohort study over the period 1981 to 1998 involving 151 CHD cases, 87 stroke cases, and a random sub-cohort of 340 was used. Sialic acid levels were determined by enzymatic method from frozen serum. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the relative risks of CHD and stroke for sialic acid tertiles and for continuous sialic acid level after adjustment for age, blood pressure, body mass index, cholesterol, triglycerides, diabetes, and smoking. RESULTS: The multivariate-adjusted relative risk of CHD associated with a 25 mg/dl increase in sialic acid was 1.22 (95% CI: 1.02-1.45) overall, 1.40 (95% CI: 1.11-1.76) in women, and 1.06 (95% CI: 0.82-1.37) in men. The overall relative risk for stroke was 1.13 (95% CI: 0.87-1.46) and for CHD and stroke combined it was 1.17 (95% CI: 0.99-1.37) CONCLUSIONS: Serum sialic acid may be a long-term predictor of CHD events in adults (especially women) who are currently clinically free of cardiovascular disease. Further studies are needed to determine whether this association can be explained by sialic acid being a marker of accelerated atherosclerosis or inflammation.

[Neuraminidase inhibitor, anti-influenzal agent--mechanism of action, and how to use clinically].

Neuraminidase inhibitor has changed the treatment of influenza dramatically. The drug is effective for both influenza A and B whereas amantadine, another anti-influenzal agent, inhibits influenza A virus infection but not B. Neuraminidase inhibitor blocks the process of release of influenza virus from infected cells and inhibit the virus transmission to the neighboring cells. Neuraminidase inhibitor improves the symptoms of influenza and shortens the duration of illness. It is emphasized that this drug should be given within forty-eight hours after the onset, and it must be not noted that the possibility of the drug resistant virus although it is observed infrequently. Prophylactic use of the drug is also discussed.

Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in children.

BACKGROUND: During epidemic years, influenza attack rates in children exceed 40%. Options for prevention and treatment include immunisation, amantadine and rimantadine, and the neuraminidase inhibitors: zanamivir and oseltamivir. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of neuraminidase inhibitors in the treatment and prophylaxis of influenza infection in children. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the GlaxoSmithKline Clinical Trials Register, generally from inception through to December 2002. We also screened the references of retrieved articles and scrutinised relevant web sites. We also screened references of retrieved articles and other systematic reviews, scrutinised web sites of European and US regulatory bodies, and contacted manufacturers and authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind randomised controlled trials comparing neuraminidase inhibitors with placebo or other antiviral drugs in children less than 12 years of age. Additional safety and tolerability data from other sources were also included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four reviewers applied the inclusion criteria to the retrieved studies, assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data were analysed separately for oseltamivir and zanamivir. MAIN RESULTS: We identified three randomised controlled trials reporting data from 1500 children with a clinical case definition of influenza, of whom 798 had laboratory confirmed influenza infection. Two were trials of oseltamivir (in healthy children and in children with asthma) and one was a trial of zanamivir (in healthy children). Overall, trial quality was good. Oseltamivir reduced the median duration of illness by 26% (36 hours) in previously healthy children with laboratory confirmed influenza (p < 0.0001) and by 17% (21 hours) in the intention-to-treat population (p = 0.0002). Zanamivir reduced the median duration of illness by 24% (1.25 days) in previously healthy children with laboratory confirmed influenza (p < 0.001) and by 10% (0.5 days) in the intention-to-treat population (p = 0.011). Both drugs also significantly reduced the time to return to normal activity. Only oseltamivir produced a significant reduction in the complications of influenza (particularly otitis media), although there was a trend to benefit for zanamivir. No data on the use of zanamivir in 'at risk' children were available. The reduction in time to resolution of illness in 'at risk' children (with asthma) treated with oseltamivir was not statistically significant. Although we identified three trials of neuraminidase inhibitors in the prevention of influenza in families (including children), Roche and GlaxoSmithKline were not willing to break-out data for paediatric populations, and so no data were eligible for inclusion in the review. The adverse events profile of zanamivir was no worse than placebo and we found no reports of zanamivir-induced bronchospasm in children. Vomiting was more common in children treated with oseltamivir (p = 0.008), but study withdrawals were similar (<2%) between oseltamivir and placebo. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Neuraminidase inhibitors were effective in shortening illness duration and hastening return to normal activity in previously healthy children with a clinical or laboratory diagnosis of influenza. Oseltamivir was effective in reducing the incidence of secondary complications. Efficacy in 'at risk' children remains to be proven. The drugs are safe, but oseltamivir can cause vomiting.

Safety and efficacy of nebulized zanamivir in hospitalized patients with serious influenza.

Influenza is an important cause of hospitalization due to lower respiratory tract involvement for which there is no specific antiviral treatment with proven efficacy. We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to assess the tolerability and efficacy of nebulized zanamivir (16 mg four times a day) in combination with rimantadine compared to rimantadine with nebulized saline for treating influenza in adults hospitalized with influenza. Twenty patients tolerated the inhaled zanamivir (ZNV) plus rimantadine without decline in peak expiratory flow rates compared to the 21 who received inhaled saline. The study was terminated early because the approval of ZNV made further enrollment untenable. No significant differences were observed in the proportion of patients shedding virus by treatment day 3 (57% ZNV plus rimantadine, 67% placebo plus rimantadine), or in the durations of hospitalization and supplemental oxygen use. More ZNV plus rimantadine recipients exhibited no or mild cough on day 3 of treatment (94 vs 55%, P=0.01). Two rimantadine-resistant viruses emerged during rimantadine monotherapy; no ZNV resistance was observed. Nebulized ZNV appears to be well tolerated in this hospitalized population but further studies are needed to assess its efficacy.

Risk for respiratory events in a cohort of patients receiving inhaled zanamivir: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled zanamivir is indicated for treatment of uncomplicated acute illness due to influenza A and B viruses in patients aged > or = 12 years who have been symptomatic for no more than 2 days. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to estimate the incidence of adverse respiratory events among zanamivir-treated patients under conditions of usual care. METHODS: The Ingenix research database includes insurance claims for all dispensations, inpatient and outpatient services, and procedures including the associated diagnoses and costs for a subset of all enrolled UnitedHealthcare members. We identified all persons with a dispensation of zanamivir recorded between October 1, 1999, and April 30, 2000. We captured medical and pharmaceutical claims data for the 6 months before the dispensation to obtain information about comorbidities, overall health status, and respiratory events. Medical and hospital record abstraction and clinical review served to confirm inpatient/emergency department (ED) events. We also examined the records of an approximately 10% random sample of patients treated for a potential respiratory event in an outpatient/ physician office visit during the 10-day follow-up period. Respiratory events not sufficiently severe to result in medical care were not captured in this study. RESULTS: A total of 5498 eligible zanamivir dispensations contributed by 5450 patients (2911 females, 2539 males; mean age, 38.8 years), with 40 confirmed inpatient/ED respiratory events, were included in the study. Of these 40 events, 31 were pneumonia, bronchitis, or exacerbations of existing chronic respiratory disease; none required intubation or ventilation. No events occurred on the dispensation date. The overall risk for an inpatient/ ED respiratory event was 0.7 per 100 episodes (95% CI, 0.5-1.0). Seven events of wheezing or shortness of breath were not an obvious extension of the original influenza-like illness or of a complicating bronchitis (risk = 0.13 per 100 episodes; 95% CI, 0.06-0.26). CONCLUSIONS: No immediate or severe bronchoconstrictive responses occurred among 5498 zanamivir dispensations. The overall risk for any respiratory event was low, and none was sufficiently severe to suggest respiratory failure.

Zanamivir prophylaxis: an effective strategy for the prevention of influenza types A and B within households.

A double-blind, randomized study of inhaled zanamivir for the prevention of influenza in families was conducted. Once a person with a suspected case of influenza was identified (index patient), treatment of all other household members (contacts) > or =5 years old was initiated. Contacts received either 10 mg zanamivir or placebo inhaled once daily for 10 days. Index patients received relief medication only. In total, 487 households (242 placebo and 245 zanamivir) were enrolled, with 1291 contacts randomly assigned to receive prophylaxis. Four percent of zanamivir versus 19% of placebo households (P<.001) had at least 1 contact who developed symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed influenza, representing 81% protective efficacy (95% confidence interval, 64%-90%). Protective efficacy was similarly high for individuals (82%) and against both influenza types A and B (78% and 85%, respectively, for households). Zanamivir was well tolerated and was effective in preventing influenza types A and B within households where the index patient was not treated.

Efficacy and safety of zanamivir in patients with influenza--impact of age, severity of infections and specific risk factors.

Influenza infections occur primarily in the winter season and may lead to serious morbidity and mortality, predominantly in patients with increased risk of complications; these include those with advanced age or with chronic clinical conditions. In this group, the rate of influenza-related hospitalization or death is considerably increased. New treatment options have been introduced for treatment of influenza infection, with the neuraminidase inhibitors zanamivir and oseltamivir being the most promising substances for treatment and prevention of influenza. Numerous double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials in otherwise healthy individuals have demonstrated that zanamivir, when administered orally inhaled for 5 days, produced a statistically significant reduction (by 1.5 days) in the time to alleviation of influenza-related symptoms by compared to inhaled placebo (lactose). The time to alleviation was reduced by 2.5 days in high-risk patients and by 3.25 days in these patients with fever at enrollment. Likewise, the time to alleviation could be reduced by 2 days in patients with severe influenza-related symptoms aged under 50 years and by 7 days in the patient population aged over 50 years compared to placebo. In patients with asthma or chronic pulmonary disease, zanamivir demonstrated a comparable efficacy, reduced the rate of pulmonary complications and did not adversely affect pulmonary function. Zanamivir was well tolerated. In conclusion, zanamivir has proven to be efficacious in treating influenza infection: this was true especially in high-risk patient groups, e.g., patients with advanced age, underlying chronic medical conditions or presenting with severe influenza-related symptoms.

Drug under test: influenza--Relenza in daily practice. Experience during the influenza season 1999/2000.

A total of 5-7 million cases of the disease, 4.5 million medical certificates, 25,000 admissions to hospital, 15,000 mortalities and direct and indirect costs amounting to several billions - that is the outcome of a "normal" influenza season (data provided by the Influenza Study Group, AGI, of Germany on the 1998/99 season). With zanamivir (Relenza), a selective inhibitor of the influenza-specific neuraminidase, a pharmaceutical product against influenza A and B is now available in Germany for the very first time. In clinical studies, zanamivir reduced not only the duration of the illness and the severity of symptoms, but also the rate of complications and the need for antibiotics. Under practice conditions, the efficacy and tolerability of the anti-influenza product were studied during the 1999/2000 influenza season. In a large observational study in over 1,900 patients, including many patients at risk of asthma and/or chronic obstructive bronchitis, zanamivir (Relenza) improved the symptoms quickly and reliably, and was tolerated very well. The diagnosis of influenza was established clinically to discriminate the disease from colds.

Antivirals for influenza: what is their role in the older patient?

Influenza infection is a cause of high morbidity and mortality in the elderly living in the community or in long-term care facilities. Yearly immunisation is the most important means for prevention of infection. However, protection by vaccination in the elderly is incomplete, and influenza infections and outbreaks in long-term care facilities still occur. Symptoms of influenza include fever, chills, headache, myalgia and respiratory symptoms. These clinical features overlap considerably with other co-circulating respiratory viruses such as respiratory syncytial virus and parainfluenza virus. Elderly and debilitated patients with influenza may present with less prominent respiratory symptoms and may present only with fever, lassitude and confusion. Antiviral prophylaxis and treatment with amantadine and rimantadine have been given in the past but adverse effects and early development of drug resistance have limited their use. The newer antivirals zanamivir and oseltamivir are equally effective and have the advantage of being well tolerated and active against both influenza A and B without the development of resistance. However, they are costly. Early identification and diagnosis of influenza illnesses are crucial since treatment with antiviral agents should be started within 48 hours of the beginning of illness.