Search

To prospectively detect amantadine-resistant influenza when amantadine was used for influenza A outbreak control.Prospective clinical surveillance and viral culture of all new respiratory illnesses during the course of amantadine prophylaxis.A 721-bed, 14-ward nursing home for veterans and spouses during an influenza A outbreak (1993–94).Residents of a veterans hospital and their spouses.Nasopharyngeal and throat viral culture. All residents with positive cultures who developed new respiratory symptoms while receiving or residing on a unit receiving amantadine prophylaxis had antiviral-resistance testing and polymerase chain reaction restriction analyses performed.Amantadine prophylaxis was administered sequentially on nine of 14 wards to all well residents for 14 to 31 days/ward to control influenza outbreaks between December 9, 1993, and January 28, 1994. Amantadine treatment was simultaneously provided to 29 ill residents. Between December 3, 1993, and January 22, 1994, 68 culture-positive cases of influenza A were detected. Twenty subjects were receiving or residing on units receiving amantadine prophylaxis. Amantadine sensitivity testing could be performed on 16 residents; 12 residents had amantadine resistant strains. Four of the 12 had not received any antiviral treatment. Illness onset ranged from 1 to 22 days after amantadine prophylaxis was begun on the individual's unit. Two ribonucleic acid (RNA) mutations in the gene coding the M2 protein transmembrane region were observed that were clustered in time and space. Isolates from two roommates, one receiving amantadine for 18 days and one on no antiviral, had identical RNA sequences.Antiviral resistance may be responsible for failure of prophylaxis in nursing home outbreaks. Strategies that use different classes of antivirals for prophylaxis and treatment may limit emergence and transmission of resistant virus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite vaccination, influenza commonly causes morbidity and mortality in institutional settings. Influenza control with rimantadine and amantadine is limited by emergence and transmission of drug-resistant influenza A variants, ineffectiveness against influenza B, and toxicity. This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of zanamivir versus rimantadine for influenza outbreak control in long-term care facilities. Methods: This double-blind, randomized, controlled study prospectively enrolled nursing home residents for 3 influenza seasons (1997 to 2000). Vaccine was offered to all subjects. Following influenza outbreak declaration, subjects were randomized to inhaled zanamivir 10 mg or standard of care (rimantadine 100 mg for influenza A or placebo for influenza B) once daily for 14 days. The proportion of randomized subjects developing symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed influenza during prophylaxis was the primary endpoint. Results: Of 482 randomizations (238 zanamivir, 231 rimantadine, 13 placebo), 96% of subjects were elderly or had high-risk conditions; over 90% were vaccinated. Symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed influenza occurred in 3% of zanamivir subjects and 8% of rimantadine subjects during chemoprophylaxis (P = .038; additional protective efficacy for zanamivir over rimantadine = 61%). Since only 25 subjects were randomized during 2 influenza B outbreaks and none developed influenza, the influenza B data were excluded from further analysis. Zanamivir was well tolerated and unassociated with emergence of resistant virus; rimantadine-resistant variants were common. Conclusions: This is the first prospective, controlled study demonstrating effectiveness of chemoprophylaxis for influenza outbreak control. Zanamivir prevents symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed influenza more effectively than rimantadine, is unassociated with resistant virus, and has a favorable safety profile. Zanamivir is an appropriate alternative for influenza outbreak control among institutionalized vaccinated elderly. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]