Search

Background: Baloxavir marboxil (hereafter baloxavir), a selective inhibitor of influenza cap-dependent endonuclease, was approved in 2018 in the USA and Japan for the treatment of uncomplicated influenza in otherwise healthy individuals aged 12 years and older. We aimed to study the efficacy of baloxavir in outpatients at high risk of developing influenza-associated complications.Methods: We did a double-blind, placebo-controlled and oseltamivir-controlled trial in outpatients aged 12 years and older in 551 sites in 17 countries and territories. Eligible patients had clinically diagnosed influenza-like illness, at least one risk factor for influenza-associated complications (eg, age older than 65 years), and a symptom duration of less than 48 h. Patients were stratified by baseline symptom score (≤14 vs ≥15), pre-existing and worsened symptoms at onset of illness compared with pre-influenza (yes or no), region (Asia, North America and Europe, or southern hemisphere), and weight (<80 kg vs ≥80 kg), and randomly assigned (1:1:1) via an interactive web-response system to either a single weight-based dose of baloxavir (40 mg for patients weighing <80 kg and 80 mg for patients weighing ≥80 kg; baloxavir group), oseltamivir 75 mg twice daily for 5 days (oseltamivir group), or matching placebo (placebo group). All patients, investigators, study personnel, and data analysts were masked to treatment assignment until database lock. The primary endpoint was time to improvement of influenza symptoms (TTIIS) in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug and had RT-PCR-confirmed influenza virus infection. Safety was assessed in all patients who receved at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02949011.Findings: 2184 patients were enrolled from Jan 11, 2017, to March 30, 2018, and randomly assigned to receive baloxavir (n=730), placebo (n=729), or oseltamivir (n=725). The modified intention-to-treat population included 1163 patients: 388 in the baloxavir group, 386 in the placebo group, and 389 in the oseltamivir group. 557 (48%) of 1163 patients had influenza A H3N2, 484 (42%) had influenza B, 80 (7%) had influenza A H1N1, 14 patients had a mixed infection, and 28 had infections with non-typable viruses. The median TTIIS was shorter in the baloxavir group (73·2 h [95% CI 67·2 to 85·1]) than in the placebo group (102·3 h [92·7 to 113·1]; difference 29·1 h [95% CI 14·6 to 42·8]; p<0·0001). The median TTIIS in the oseltamivir group was 81·0 h (95% CI 69·4 to 91·5), with a difference from the baloxavir group of 7·7 h (-7·9 to 22·7). Adverse events were reported in 183 (25%) of 730 patients in the baloxavir group, 216 (30%) of 727 in the placebo group, and 202 (28%) of 721 in the oseltamivir group. Serious adverse events were noted in five patients in the baloxavir group, nine patients in the placebo group, and eight patients in the oseltamivir group; one case each of hypertension and nausea in the placebo group and two cases of transaminase elevation in the oseltamivir group were considered to be treatment related. Polymerase acidic protein variants with Ile38Thr, Ile38Met, or Ile38Asn substitutions conferring reduced baloxavir susceptibility emerged in 15 (5%) of 290 baloxavir recipients assessed for amino acid substitutions in the virus.Interpretation: Single-dose baloxavir has superior efficacy to placebo and similar efficacy to oseltamivir for ameliorating influenza symptoms in high-risk outpatients. The safety of baloxavir was comparable to placebo. This study supports early therapy for patients at high risk of complications of influenza to speed clinical recovery and reduce complications.Funding: Shionogi. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary Since the 18th century a wealth of knowledge regarding infectious disease pathogenesis, prevention, and treatment has been accumulated from findings of infection challenges in human beings. Partly because of improvements to ethical and regulatory guidance, human challenge studies—involving the deliberate exposure of participants to infectious substances—have had a resurgence in popularity in the past few years, in particular for the assessment of vaccines. To provide an overview of the potential use of challenge models, we present historical reports and contemporary views from experts in this type of research. A range of challenge models and practical approaches to generate important data exist and are used to expedite vaccine and therapeutic development and to support public health modelling and interventions. Although human challenge studies provide a unique opportunity to address complex research questions, participant and investigator safety is paramount. To increase the collaborative effort and future success of this area of research, we recommend the development of consensus frameworks and sharing of best practices between investigators. Furthermore, standardisation of challenge procedures and regulatory guidance will help with the feasibility for using challenge models in clinical testing of new disease intervention strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary Observational data suggest that the treatment of influenza infection with neuraminidase inhibitors decreases progression to more severe illness, especially when treatment is started soon after symptom onset. However, even early treatment might fail to prevent complications in some patients, particularly those infected with novel viruses such as the 2009 pandemic influenza A H1N1, avian influenza A H5N1 virus subtype, or the avian influenza A H7N9 virus subtype. Furthermore, treatment with one antiviral drug might promote the development of antiviral resistance, especially in immunocompromised hosts and critically ill patients. An obvious strategy to optimise antiviral therapy is to combine drugs with different modes of action. Because host immune responses to infection might also contribute to illness pathogenesis, improved outcomes might be gained from the combination of antiviral therapy with drugs that modulate the immune response in an infected individual. We review available data from preclinical and clinical studies of combination antiviral therapy and of combined antiviral-immunomodulator therapy for influenza. Early-stage data draw attention to several promising antiviral combinations with therapeutic potential in severe infections, but there remains a need to substantiate clinical benefit. Combination therapies with favourable experimental data need to be tested in carefully designed aclinical trials to assess their efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary The emergence and spread of antimicrobial-resistant bacterial, viral, and fungal pathogens for which diminishing treatment options are available is of major global concern. New viral respiratory tract infections with epidemic potential, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome, swine-origin influenza A H1N1, and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection, require development of new antiviral agents. The substantial rise in the global numbers of patients with respiratory tract infections caused by pan-antibiotic-resistant Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis , and multiazole-resistant fungi has focused attention on investments into development of new drugs and treatment regimens. Successful treatment outcomes for patients with respiratory tract infections across all health-care settings will necessitate rapid, precise diagnosis and more effective and pathogen-specific therapies. This Series paper describes the development and use of new antimicrobial agents and immune-based and host-directed therapies for a range of conventional and emerging viral, bacterial, and fungal causes of respiratory tract infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Influenza A H1N1 2009 virus caused the first pandemic in an era when neuraminidase inhibitor antiviral drugs were available in many countries. The experiences of detecting and responding to resistance during the pandemic provided important lessons for public health, laboratory testing, and clinical management. We propose recommendations for antiviral susceptibility testing, reporting results, and management of patients infected with 2009 pandemic influenza A H1N1. Sustained global monitoring for antiviral resistance among circulating influenza viruses is crucial to inform public health and clinical recommendations for antiviral use, especially since community spread of oseltamivir-resistant A H1N1 2009 virus remains a concern. Further studies are needed to better understand influenza management in specific patient groups, such as severely immunocompromised hosts, including optimisation of antiviral treatment, rapid sample testing, and timely reporting of susceptibility results. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Summary: Recent spread of avian influenza A (H5N1) virus to poultry and wild birds has increased the threat of human infections with H5N1 virus worldwide. Despite international agreement to stockpile antivirals, evidence-based guidelines for their use do not exist. WHO assembled an international multidisciplinary panel to develop rapid advice for the pharmacological management of human H5N1 virus infection in the current pandemic alert period. A transparent methodological guideline process on the basis of the Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to develop evidence-based guidelines. Our development of specific recommendations for treatment and chemoprophylaxis of sporadic H5N1 infection resulted from the benefits, harms, burden, and cost of interventions in several patient and exposure groups. Overall, the quality of the underlying evidence for all recommendations was rated as very low because it was based on small case series of H5N1 patients, on extrapolation from preclinical studies, and high quality studies of seasonal influenza. A strong recommendation to treat H5N1 patients with oseltamivir was made in part because of the severity of the disease. Similarly, strong recommendations were made to use neuraminidase inhibitors as chemoprophylaxis in high-risk exposure populations. Emergence of other novel influenza A viral subtypes with pandemic potential, or changes in the pathogenicity of H5N1 virus strains, will require an update of these guidelines and WHO will be monitoring this closely. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Influenza poses special hazards inside healthcare facilities and can cause explosive outbreaks of illness. Healthcare workers are at risk of acquiring influenza and thus serve as an important reservoir for patients under their care. Annual influenza immunisation of high-risk persons and their contacts, including healthcare workers, is the primary means of preventing nosocomial influenza. Despite influenza vaccine effectiveness, it is substantially underused by healthcare providers. Influenza can be diagnosed by culturing the virus from respiratory secretions and by rapid antigen detection kits; recognition of a nosocomial outbreak is important in order to employ infection-control efforts. Optimal control of influenza in the acute-care setting should focus upon reducing potential influenza reservoirs in the hospital, including: isolating patients with suspected or documented influenza, sending home healthcare providers or staff who exhibit typical symptoms of influenza, and discouraging persons with febrile respiratory illness from visiting the hospital during a known influenza outbreak in the community. (Note: influenza and other respiratory viruses can cause non-febrile illness but are still transmissible.) The antiviral M2 protein inhibitors (amantadine, rimantadine) and neuraminidase inhibitors (zanamivir, oseltamivir) have proven efficacy in treating and preventing influenza illness; however, their role in the prevention and control of influenza in the acute hospital setting remains to be more fully studied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The massive outbreak of Ebola virus disease in west Africa between 2013 and 2016 resulted in intense efforts to evaluate the efficacy of several specific countermeasures developed through years of preclinical work, including the first clinical trials for therapeutics and vaccines. In this Review, we discuss how the experience and data generated from that outbreak have helped to advance the understanding of the use of these countermeasures for post-exposure prophylaxis against Ebola virus infection. In future outbreaks, post-exposure prophylaxis could play an important part in reducing community transmission of Ebola virus by providing more immediate protection than does immunisation as well as providing additional protection for health-care workers who are inadvertently exposed over the course of their work. We propose provisional guidance for use of post-exposure prophylaxis in Ebola virus disease and identify the priorities for future preparedness and further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The massive outbreak of Ebola virus disease in west Africa between 2013 and 2016 resulted in intense efforts to evaluate the efficacy of several specific countermeasures developed through years of preclinical work, including the first clinical trials for therapeutics and vaccines. In this Review, we discuss how the experience and data generated from that outbreak have helped to advance the understanding of the use of these countermeasures for post-exposure prophylaxis against Ebola virus infection. In future outbreaks, post-exposure prophylaxis could play an important part in reducing community transmission of Ebola virus by providing more immediate protection than does immunisation as well as providing additional protection for health-care workers who are inadvertently exposed over the course of their work. We propose provisional guidance for use of post-exposure prophylaxis in Ebola virus disease and identify the priorities for future preparedness and further research., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)