Search

Metabolic profiling offers huge potential to highlight markers and mechanisms in support of toxicology and pathology investigations during drug development. The main objective was to modify therapy with adamantane derivatives: amantadine and rimantadine, to increase their bioavailability and evaluate the influence of such therapy on drug metabolism using Saccharomyces cerevisiae as the model organism. In this study, the profile of endogenous metabolites of a model organism was measured and interpreted to provide an opportunity to investigate changes induced by treatment with amantadine and rimantadine. It was found that resveratrol supplementation synergistically enhanced the effects of amantadine treatment and increased rimantadine metabolism, potentially reducing side effects. The fingerprinting strategy was used as an efficient technique for qualitatively evaluating and monitoring changes in the profiles of endogenous components and their contents in a model organism. Chemometric tools were employed to find marker compounds that can be defined as characteristic indicators of a pharmacological response to a therapeutic intervention. An improved understanding of the mechanisms involved in drug effect and an increased ability to predict individual variations in the drug response of organisms will improve the treatment process and the development of new therapies., (© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.)

Introduction: Adamantanthane-type drugs such as rimantadine and amantadine have long been used to treat diseases caused by influenza A virus. However, as a result of the mutations, influenza viruses have become resistant to aminoadamantans. The target for these drugs was the protein channel M2. Influenza A virus M2 viroporin in the protein shell forms fairly specific ion channels with a diameter of about 11 Å, specializing in transporting protons inside the viral particle (virion). Restoration of the antiviral properties of adamantanthane-type drugs consists in the selection of advanced functional groups bound by the carbocycle to find new sites of binding to the protein target M2. The purpose of the study is to identify the antiviral properties of new adamantanum derivatives to the pandemic strain of influenza A virus in vitro., Material and Methods: Compounds of aminoadamantans with amino acids and other organic molecules were obtained by classical peptide synthesis methods. The structure of the compound was tested by means of physical and chemical methods. Antiviral properties of synthetic compounds were studied in vitro on monolayer MDCK cells infected with pandemic strain of influenza A/California/07/2009 virus in two schemes of administration of investigated compounds and virus., Results: The reference strain of the influenza virus A/California/07/2009(H1N1) was sensitive to the compounds under test in varying degrees. The antiviral activity of the compounds was expressed in a 50% inhibitory concentration (IС 50 ) ranging from 0.5 to 2.5 мкM, which is generally a good indicator for the Rimantadine/Amantadine resistant strain., Discussion: The values of the IС 50 for compounds introduced two hours before contact with the virus were slightly higher than those for single-moment introduction of the substance and virus. The effect of increasing the inhibitory concentration in the prophylactic scheme of compounds was valid for all compounds of the experiment., Conclusion: The presented synthetic compounds are active against the variant of influenza A virus resistant to Rimantadine and Amantadine preparations. The obtained compounds can be used as model structures for creation of a new drug of direct action against advanced strains of influenza A virus., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

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.

Preclinical data suggest increased antiviral activity and less viral resistance when neuraminidase inhibitors and adamantanes are used in combination to harness the complementary effects of their different mechanisms of action. Healthy volunteers were randomized to 5-day oral treatment with oseltamivir 75 mg or rimantadine 100 mg twice daily as monotherapy or to combination treatment. Each participant received all 3 regimens in 1 of 6 treatment sequences, with a minimum of 7 days' washout between periods. Final follow-up was 10 to 14 days after the final dose. Drug exposure, elimination, safety, and tolerability were assessed. There were no clinically relevant differences in 12-hour areas under the concentration-time curves of drug in plasma or peak plasma drug concentrations with combination versus monotherapy. Elimination half-life was unaffected by coadministration. There were no safety/tolerability concerns. One case of vomiting and 1 of paresthesia were considered remotely related to combination treatment, and 1 episode of toothache and 1 of acne were considered unrelated. There were no serious adverse events and no deaths. Combination therapy with oseltamivir and rimantadine at recommended dosages in adults had no discernible effect on the pharmacokinetics of either drug and raised no tolerability issues.

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.

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.

Objective: To review the maternal and neonatal outcomes after antepartum exposure to M2 ion channel inhibitors or oseltamivir to provide some guidance on the risk, if any, of antiviral medication during pregnancy., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study examining maternal and neonatal outcomes after antepartum exposure to antiviral therapy for influenza. We evaluated maternal characteristics, pregnancy outcomes, and fetal outcomes and compared them with our overall obstetric population., Results: Exposure to antiviral therapies (M2 ion channel inhibitors [n=104] compared with oseltamivir [n=135] compared with the control group [n=82,097]) during pregnancy was not associated with increased rates of preterm birth (7% compared with 10% compared with 6%, P=.190), premature rupture of membranes (23% compared with 16% compared with 22%, P=.154), gestational diabetes (4% compared with 8% compared with 6%, P=.388), or preeclampsia (6% compared with 1% compared with 4%, P=.209). Exposure was not associated with increased duration of hospital stay for mother or neonate. There were no differences in the incidence of minor malformations (19% compared with 15% compared with 22%, P=.101). Liveborn singletons without major malformations did not have differences in fetal weight (3,238+/-586 g compared with 3,281+/-642 g compared with 3,336+/-571 g, P=.186), need for intubation (2% compared with 0.8% compared with 1%, P=.552), intensive care nursery admission (3% compared with 3% compared with 2%, P=.418), or hyperbilirubinemia (12% compared with 9% compared with 8%, P=.282). Liveborn singletons had no grade 3 or 4 intraventricular hemorrhages, seizures, or neonatal deaths. Two preterm neonates exposed to different classes of medications had necrotizing enterocolitis (1.0% compared with 0.8% compared with 0.02%, P<.001)., Conclusion: We found no evidence of an association between antepartum antiviral exposure and adverse outcomes., Level of Evidence: II.

Background: When oseltamivir is administered in extremely high doses (500-1000 mg/kg) to young juvenile rats, central nervous system toxicity and death occurred in some animals. Mortality was not observed in older juvenile rats, suggesting a possible relationship between neurotoxicity and an immature blood-brain barrier. To assess potential neurologic adverse effects of oseltamivir use in infants, a retrospective chart review was performed in infants less than 12 months of age who received oseltamivir, amantadine, or rimantadine., Methods: The primary objective was to describe the frequency of neurologic adverse events among children less than 12 months of age who received oseltamivir compared with those receiving adamantanes. Medical record databases, emergency department databases, and/or pharmacy records at 15 medical centers were searched to identify patients., Results: Of the 180 infants identified as having received antiviral therapy, 115 (64%) received oseltamivir, 37 (20%) received amantadine, and 28 (16%) received rimantadine. The median dose of oseltamivir was 2.0 mg/kg/dose in 3- to 5-month-old and 2.2 mg/kg/dose in 9- to 12-month-old infants. The maximum dose administered was 7.0 mg/kg/dose. There were no statistically significant differences in the occurrence of adverse neurologic events during therapy among subjects treated with oseltamivir versus those treated with the adamantanes (P = 0.13)., Conclusions: This is the largest report to date of oseltamivir use in children less than 12 months of age. Neurologic events were not more common with use of oseltamivir compared with that of the adamantanes. Dosing of oseltamivir was variable, illustrating the need for pharmacokinetic data in this younger population.

Background: Although amantadine (AMT) and rimantadine (RMT) are used to relieve or treat influenza A symptoms in healthy adults, little is known about the effectiveness and safety of these antivirals in preventing and treating influenza A in children and the elderly., Objectives: The aim of this review was to systematically consider evidence on the effectiveness and safety of AMT and RMT in preventing and treating influenza A in children and the elderly., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2007, issue 3); MEDLINE (1966 to July 2007) and EMBASE (1980 to July 2007)., Selection Criteria: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing AMT and/or RMT in children and the elderly with placebo, control, other antivirals or comparing different doses or schedules of AMT and/or RMT or no intervention., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and assessed methodological quality. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. In all comparisons except for one, the trials in children and in the elderly were analysed separately. Data were analysed and reported using Cochrane Review Manager 4.2. software., Main Results: In children, RMT was effective in the abatement of fever on day three of treatment. AMT showed a prophylactic effect against influenza A infection. AMT and RMT were not related to an increase in the occurrence of adverse effects. RMT also was considered to be well tolerated by the elderly, but showed no prophylactic effect. Different doses were comparable in the prophylaxis of influenza in the elderly, as well as in reporting adverse effects. Zanamivir prevented influenza A more effectively than RMT in the elderly., Authors' Conclusions: AMT was effective in the prophylaxis of influenza A in children. As confounding matters might have affected our findings, caution should be taken when considering which patients should to be given this prophylactic. Our conclusions about effectiveness of both antivirals for the treatment of influenza A in children were limited to a proven benefit of RMT in the abatement of fever on day three of treatment. 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.

Antiviral agents are available that are safe and effective for the treatment and prophylaxis of influenza virus infections in children. The neuraminidase inhibitors (oseltamivir [Tamiflu] and zanamivir [Relenza]) are preferred agents because of current widespread resistance to the adamantanes (amantadine [Symmetrel] and rimantadine [Flumadine]). Therapy should be provided to children with influenza infection who are at high risk of severe infection and to children with moderate-to-severe influenza infection who may benefit from a decrease in the duration of symptoms. Prophylaxis should be provided (1) to high-risk children who have not yet received immunization and during the 2 weeks after immunization, (2) to unimmunized family members and health care professionals with close contact with high-risk unimmunized children or infants who are younger than 6 months, and (3) for control of influenza outbreaks in unimmunized staff and children in an institutional setting. Testing of current H5N1 avian influenza virus isolates, the potential agents of pandemic influenza, suggests susceptibility to oseltamivir and zanamivir. Because no prospective data exist on the efficacy of these agents in humans for H5N1 strains, the dosage and duration of therapy in adults and children may differ from those documented to be effective for epidemic influenza strains.

Linear immunoglobulin A (IgA) bullous dermatosis (LABD) is a rare autoimmune disorder characterized by vesiculobullous mucocutaneous eruptions. LABD also has been reported as a drug-induced reaction. Idiopathic LABD and drug-induced LABD are clinically indistinguishable and can resemble bullous pemphigoid, dermatitis herpetiformis, or bullous erythema multiforme. LABD is diagnosed with direct immunofluorescence (DIF), and idiopathic LABD can be distinguished from drug-induced LABD with a careful medication history. We present the case of a 54-year-old man with drug-induced LABD after ingestion of rimantadine, zanamivir, and azithromycin for presumed influenza. The patient's bullous eruption resolved with discontinuation of the offending medications and treatment with prednisone and pentoxifylline.

Background: Amantadine hydrochloride and rimantadine hydrochloride have antiviral properties, but they are not widely used due to a lack of knowledge of their potential value and concerns about possible adverse effects., Objectives: The objective of this review was to assess the efficacy, effectiveness and safety ("effects") of amantadine and rimantadine in healthy adults., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (2003 to August Week 4, 2005), EMBASE (October 2003 to July 2005) and reference lists of articles., Selection Criteria: Randomised and quasi-randomised studies comparing amantadine and/or rimantadine with placebo, control medication or no intervention, or comparing doses or schedules of amantadine and/or rimantadine in healthy adults., Data Collection and Analysis: For prophylaxis (prevention) trials the numbers of participants with clinical influenza (influenza-like-illness or ILI) or with confirmed influenza A and adverse effects were analysed. Analysis for treatment trials was of the mean duration of fever, length of hospital stay and adverse effects., Main Results: Amantadine prevented 25% of ILI cases (95% confidence interval (CI) 13% to 36%), and 61% of influenza A cases (95% CI 35% to 76%). Amantadine reduced duration of fever by one day (95% CI 0.7 to 1.2). Rimantadine demonstrated comparable effectiveness, but there were fewer trials and the results for prophylaxis were not statistically significant. Both amantadine and rimantadine induced significant gastrointestinal adverse effects. Adverse effects of the central nervous system and study withdrawals were significantly more common with amantadine than rimantadine. Neither drug affected the rate of viral shedding from the nose and the course of asymptomatic influenza., Authors' Conclusions: Amantadine and rimantadine have comparable efficacy and effectiveness in relieving or treating symptoms of influenza A in healthy adults, although rimantadine induces fewer adverse effects than amantadine. The effectiveness of both drugs in interrupting transmission is probably low. Routine use of both drugs should be discouraged and both drugs should only be used when all other measures fail.

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.

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.

Background: Physicians have several treatment options for influenza, including vaccination and various antiviral therapies. However, the optimal influenza prevention and treatment strategy is unknown., Objective: To compare the relative health values of contemporary treatment strategies for influenza in a healthy sample of working adults., Design: Cost-benefit analysis using a decision model., Data Sources: Previously published data., Target Population: Healthy employed adults 18 to 50 years of age., Time Horizon: A complete influenza season., Perspective: Societal., Interventions: Eight treatment options (yes or no) based on the possible combinations of vaccination and antiviral therapy (rimantadine, oseltamivir, or zanamivir or no treatment) should infection develop., Outcome Measures: Cost in U.S. dollars, including the value of symptom relief and medication side effects, which was assigned a monetary value through a conjoint analysis that used a "willingness-to-pay" approach., Results: In the base-case analysis, all strategies for influenza vaccination had a higher net benefit than the nonvaccination strategies. Vaccination and use of rimantadine, the most cost-beneficial strategy, was $30.97 more cost-beneficial than nonvaccination and no use of antiviral medication. The health benefits of most antiviral treatments equaled or exceeded their costs for most scenarios. The choice of the most cost-beneficial antiviral strategy was sensitive to the prevalence of influenza B and to the comparative workdays gained by each antiviral therapy., Conclusions: Vaccination is cost-beneficial in most influenza seasons in healthy working adults. Although the benefits of antiviral therapy for persons with influenza infection appear to justify its cost, head-to-head trials of the various antiviral therapies are needed to determine the optimal treatment strategy.

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.

Influenza virus infection accounts for significant morbidity, mortality, and healthcare expenditures among persons worldwide. Approximately 20,000 to 40,000 people in the US die each year as a result of influenza. Individuals most susceptible to adverse outcomes include the elderly and those with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart disease, renal failure, malignancy, or immunosuppression. Prior to the AIDS epidemic, underlying respiratory disease was the greatest risk factor for influenza-related hospitalization ranking third to heart disease and malignancy for risk of mortality. Although the influenza vaccine can help prevent pneumonia and hospitalization, it is limited by less than ideal immunization rates and the possibility of viral antigenic shifts that render the vaccine ineffective. Pharmacologic interventions play an important role in the management of influenza virus infection by shortening the duration of symptoms. The advent of the neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) zanamivir and oseltamivir has significantly affected the treatment of influenza. Unlike NAIs, the older therapeutic options amantadine and rimantadine may cause significant central nervous system adverse effects. In addition, amantadine and rimantadine are not active against influenza B viruses, whereas NAIs are active against both influenza A and B. Post-marketing surveillance of the NAIs has revealed that bronchospasm may occur in patients with underlying respiratory disease treated with the NAI zanamivir. Recent data suggest zanamivir is effective in patients with underlying respiratory disease, but the data are insufficient to elucidate the true risk of bronchospasm. Based on post-marketing reports, zanamivir should be used with caution in patients with asthma or COPD. Although oseltamivir has not been associated with any significant respiratory adverse effects, no data exist on the safety and efficacy of this NAI in patients with underlying respiratory disease.

Background: Amantadine hydrochloride and rimantadine hydrochloride are recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for prophylaxis of influenza A. While data suggest that rimantadine is better tolerated, there are no data examining the rate of adverse reactions in elderly patients who receive amantadine vs rimantadine. Our objective was to assess the adverse reaction rate in elderly nursing home patients receiving sequential amantadine and rimantadine for influenza A prophylaxis., Methods: Data were collected in 156 nursing home patients (70% women; mean+/-SD age, 83.7+/-10.1 years) in a single care setting who received sequential therapy with amantadine and rimantadine during the 1997-1998 influenza season. Patients were assessed for central nervous system adverse effects and therapy discontinuation occurring with each agent., Results: Twenty-nine (18.6%) of the 156 patients experienced an adverse effect when receiving amantadine compared with 3 patients (1.9%) when rimantadine was given (P<.01). Drug use was discontinued due to adverse events in 17.3% (n = 27) of the amantadine courses and 1.9% (n=3) of the rimantadine courses (P<.001). Confusion was the most frequently observed adverse event (amantadine, 10.6%; rimantadine, 0.6%; P<.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that significant risk factors for central nervous system adverse events included male sex (odds ratio, 3.65), reduced calculated creatinine clearance (odds ratio, 1.78), and use of amantadine (odds ratio, 12.73)., Conclusions: Amantadine use was associated with a significantly higher incidence of central nervous system adverse events than rimantadine use in this elderly population receiving influenza prophylaxis. In addition, the discontinuation rate of amantadine was significantly higher than that with rimantadine.

Introduction: We present three systematic reviews carried out within the Cochrane Collaboration, focusing on a different influenza intervention in healthy adults: Vaccines; Ion Channel Inhibitor antivirals and Neuraminidase Inhibitor (NIs) antivirals. The objectives were to identify, retrieve and assess all studies evaluating the effects of these interventions in prophylaxis and early treatments of influenza and the frequency of adverse events. Additionally we present the results of the economic evaluation of effective alternatives in order to define the most cost-effective intervention. The economic evaluation is set in the context of the British Army., Methods: Studies were identified using a standard Cochrane search strategy. Any randomised or quasi-randomised studies in healthy individuals aged 14-60 years were considered for inclusion in the systematic review. Those which met inclusion criteria were assessed for quality and their data meta-analysed. The economic model was constructed using Cost-effectiveness and Cost-utility study designs., Results: Live aerosol vaccines reduced cases of clinical influenza A with virological confirmation (by serology and/or viral isolation) by 48% (95%CI: 24-64%), whilst recommended inactivated parenteral vaccines have an efficacy of 68% (95%CI: 49-79%). Vaccine effectiveness in reducing clinical influenza cases (i.e. without virological confirmation) was lower, with efficacies of 13 and 24% respectively. Use of the vaccine significantly reduced time off work, but only by 0.4 days (95%CI: 0. 1-0.8 days). Analysis of vaccines matching the circulating strain gave higher estimates of efficacy, whilst inclusion of all other vaccines reduced the efficacy. When compared to placebo for the prevention of influenza, oral amantadine was 61% (95%CI: 51-69%) efficacious (RR 0.39 - 95%CI: 0.31-0.49), and oral rimantadine was 64% (95%CI: 41-78%) efficacious (RR 0.36 -95%CI: 0.22-0.59). When compared to placebo for the treatment of influenza, oral amantadine significantly shortened duration of fever (by 1.00 days - 95%CI: 0. 73-1.29), and oral rimantadine significantly shortened duration of fever (by 1.27 days - 95%CI: 0.77-1.77). When compared to placebo, NIs were 74% (95%CIs: 50-87%) effective in preventing naturally occurring cases of clinically defined influenza. In a treatment role, NIs shortened the duration of symptoms by one day (Weighted Mean Difference - 1.0; 95%CIs: -1.3 to - 0.6) when a clinical case definition is used. The economic results show that in healthy adults, inactivated vaccines appear the best buy., Conclusions: If assessed from the point of view of effectiveness and efficiency, vaccines are undoubtedly the best preventive means for clinical influenza in healthy adults. However, when safety and quality of life considerations are included, parenteral vaccines have such low effectiveness and high incidence of trivial local adverse effects that the trade-off is unfavourable. This is so even when the incidence of influenza is high and adverse effect quality of life preferences are rated low. We reached similar conclusions for antivirals and NIs even at high influenza incidence levels. On current evidence we conclude in healthy adults aged 14-60 the most cost-effective option is not to take any action.

Objective: Therapeutic options are limited for chronic hepatitis C patients who have not responded to a course of interferon therapy. Recently, a 6-month course of amantadine was shown to result in a sustained virological response in chronic hepatitis C patients who were unresponsive to interferon therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of rimantadine on chronic hepatitis C patients who had not responded to interferon therapy., Methods: This was an open label trial involving 17 patients who were treated with rimantadine 100 mg b.i.d. for 6 months. Changes in serum aminotransferase activities and HCV-RNA levels were determined., Results: Mean alanine aminotransferase activities and HCV RNA levels did not change significantly during therapy. HCV RNA remained detectable in all patients throughout therapy. Neurologic symptoms (headaches, nervousness, and dizziness) developed in 29% of patients. A total of 12% of patients required dose reduction after 12 wk of therapy because of dizziness., Conclusion: Rimantadine has no significant antiviral activity against HCV.

The purpose of this pilot study was to determine whether rimantadine, the alpha-methyl derivative of amantadine, might have any antiparkinsonian properties. In an open-label trial, 14 patients (12 de novo and 2 on levodopa treatment) with Hoehn and Yahr stage 2 to 3 Parkinson's disease were placed on rimantadine at doses of 100 to 300 mg/d. No patients had dyskinesias or motor fluctuations. Ten of 14 (71%) reported a mean subjective response of 33% (range 10%-60%) to rimantadine. After treatment, there was a 13% improvement in Hoehn and Yahr staging (p = .01) and a 20% improvement in mean motor Unified Parkinsons Disease Rating Scale scores (p = .02). Rigidity was the most consistently improved feature among the responders. Mean effective dose was 256 mg/d (range 200-300 mg/d). Side effects were mild and transient, with nausea being most common (4/14). We conclude that rimantadine has some motor benefits in Parkinson's disease. A double-blind placebo-controlled study is warranted to validate our findings.

Influenza viruses cause recurring illnesses among individuals and recurring epidemics among populations. The major effective control measure for preventing infection and illness is inactivated vaccine, which can prevent influenza illnesses and their complications when given before exposure to the virus. While inactivated vaccine is effective for preventing influenza in most individuals, recommendations for its use focus on the prevention of severe disease and death among those who are at high risk of complications. Live attenuated cold-adapted influenza vaccines are nearing availability. They are given by nasal spray and are particularly effective for preventing influenza among young children, but also for preventing influenza among young adults, and enhancing protection against influenza when given with inactivated vaccine to elderly persons. The antiviral agents amantadine and rimantadine are related compounds that are effective for the prevention and treatment of influenza A virus infections and illnesses. Disadvantages are the rapid development of resistance during treatment and CNS adverse effects with amantadine. These drugs are also effective for outbreak control. Ribavirin is an antiviral given by small particle aerosol that is approved for the treatment of respiratory syncytial virus disease; it is also effective for the treatment of influenza. Two new antiviral agents inhibit influenza viral neuraminidase activity; one is given by inhalation or intranasally (zanamivir) and the other orally (GS4104). The former is free of adverse effects, while the latter induces nausea and vomiting in some individuals. Both are effective for the prevention as well as the treatment of influenza A and B illnesses. Thus, various measures for preventing and treating influenza are nearing availability. Their optimal use should further improve the control of influenza in individuals and populations as well as permit efforts to prevent community epidemics.

These recommendations update information concerning the vaccine and antiviral agents available for controlling influenza during the 1998-99 influenza season (superseding MMWR 1997;46[No. RR-9:1-25]). The principal changes include a) information about the influenza virus strains included in the trivalent vaccine for 1998-99, b) more detailed information about influenza-associated rates of hospitalization, and c) updated information on the possible relationship between Guillain-Barre syndrome and influenza vaccination.

These recommendations update information on the vaccine and antiviral agents available for controlling influenza during the 1996-97 influenza season (superseding MMWR 1995;44(No. RR-3):1-22). The principal changes include information about a) the influenza virus strains included in the trivalent vaccine for 1996-97 and b) extension of the optimal time for influenza vaccination campaigns for persons in high-risk groups.

The safety and efficacy of rimantadine for long-term prophylaxis of influenza A (H3N2) infection were evaluated among elderly residents in 10 nursing homes. Within each nursing home, participating residents were randomly assigned to receive placebo or rimantadine at 100 or 200 mg/day. Residents were evaluated daily for symptoms and significant health events as possible side effects, as well as for influenza-like illness. The study medications were administered to 328 residents for up to 8 weeks, with no statistically significant differences in the frequencies of gastrointestinal or central nervous system symptoms between the groups. However, residents in the active medication groups were more likely to withdraw from the study and to experience various health events including death; some but not all of these differences were statistically significant. Efficacy evaluations were carried out on the 68 vaccinated residents in the two nursing homes with demonstrated influenza virus activity. Rimantadine appeared to provide an additional protective effect beyond vaccination in reducing the risk of clinical and laboratory-confirmed influenza-like illness; however, the efficacy estimates were never statistically significant. The efficacies of the 100- and 200-mg/day dosages were generally similar. When data for the 100- and 200-mg/day dosage groups were combined and compared with data for the group receiving placebo, the efficacy of rimantadine in reducing the risk of clinical influenza-like illness was estimated to be 58 percent (P = 0.079). The results suggest the relative safety and clinical efficacy of using rimantadine for influenza prophylaxis among vaccinated elderly individuals and support the recommendation for a dosage reduction to 100 mg/day in this population.

Objective: To provide a review of rimantadine, including its antiviral activity, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, adverse effects, drug interactions, and dosage and administration. Information on influenza A virus and clinical features of influenza disease are presented. Comparative data on rimantadine and amantadine are described., Data Sources: A MEDLINE search restricted to English-language literature published from 1966 through 1994 and an extensive review of journals was conducted., Data Extraction: The data on antiviral activity, pharmacokinetics, adverse effects, and drug interactions were obtained from various articles on rimantadine in open and controlled studies. Controlled double-blind studies were evaluated to assess the efficacy of rimantadine in prophylaxis and treatment of influenza A infection., Data Synthesis: Over 90% of a rimantadine dose was absorbed in 3-6 hours in healthy adults. Steady-state plasma concentrations have ranged from 0.10 to 2.60 micrograms/mL at doses of 3 mg/kg/d in infants to 100 mg twice daily in the elderly. Nasal fluid concentrations of rimantadine at steady-state were 1.5 times higher than plasma concentrations, which may explain the effectiveness of rimantadine despite a low plasma concentration. Over 75% of a rimantadine dose was metabolized in the liver, and the parent compound and metabolites were almost completely eliminated by the kidneys. The elimination half-life ranged from 24.8 to 36.5 hours, which allows once-daily dosing. Dosage adjustment is recommended for patients with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance < or = 0.17 mL/s), severe hepatic dysfunction, or elderly nursing home patients. Drug-resistant strains of influenza A virus to rimantadine occurred in several studies with children and/or adults. Clinical significance of drug-resistant strains has not been established. Rimantadine appeared to be effective in 85-90% of individuals for prevention of influenza A illness and in 50-65% for prevention of influenza A infection. Rimantadine reduced the time to a 50% reduction in symptoms by 1-3 days versus placebo. Differences in symptom reduction between rimantadine and placebo after the first 3 days of treatment was not generally clinically significant. The most common adverse effects of rimantadine administration were associated with the central nervous system (CNS) and the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. CNS-related adverse effects occurred in 3.2% of children younger than 10 years of age and 8.4% of adults. In elderly patients, the incidence of CNS-related adverse effects ranged from 4.9% at 100 mg/d to 12.5% at 200 mg/d. GI adverse effects occurred in 8.4% of children younger than 10 years of age, 3.1% of adults, and 2.9% at 100 mg/d and 17.0% at 200 mg/d in the elderly., Conclusions: Rimantadine offers some desirable features for the treatment and prophylaxis of influenza A infection. It appears to be an attractive choice in elderly patients with a history of CNS adverse effects from amantadine and in patients with mild or moderate renal impairment. Although approved for twice-daily dosing, rimantadine has a pharmacokinetic profile that would allow once-daily dosing. It is effective for prophylaxis (not postexposure prophylaxis) and treatment of influenza A virus. It also has a low incidence of adverse effects.

Amantadine and rimantadine are recommended for the treatment and prophylaxis of influenza A infections, and constitute an integral component of influenza control measures in the nursing home setting. However, optimal use necessitates a thorough understanding of the toxicity profiles of these agents, as well as strategies to reduce the risk of adverse reactions. Adverse reactions of these compounds predominantly involve the gastrointestinal tract and the central nervous system (CNS), including hyperexcitability, slurred speech, tremors, insomnia, dizziness, mood disturbance, ataxia, psychosis and fatigue. Based on data from comparative trials, rimantadine appears to exhibit a lesser propensity to cause adverse CNS reactions than amantadine, but a similar propensity to cause adverse gastrointestinal reactions. Factors enhancing the risk of adverse reactions to these agents include reduced renal function (especially for amantadine), drug-drug interactions with cationic drugs, which inhibit amantadine renal tubular secretion (e.g. trimethoprim, triamterene, and possibly cimetidine and procainamide), elevated peak and trough plasma concentrations, and a history of seizures. Careful attention to published dosage adjustment guidelines for these compounds, avoidance of interacting drugs and avoiding these agents in patients with a history of seizures may be the best means to reduce the risk of toxicity in elderly patients. Rimantadine may have an advantage over amantadine in the elderly population in light of its lesser propensity to cause adverse reactions, less complex dosage adjustment in the case of renal impairment and probable lack of drug-drug interaction potential with cationic drugs.

Most antiviral drugs are nucleoside analogues with potential teratogenic, embryotoxic, carcinogenic and antiproliferative activities. They must be administered with caution during pregnancy, because some are known teratogens (e.g. amantadine) and a similar propensity cannot be entirely excluded for others (e.g. aciclovir). Their adverse effects mostly involve bone marrow depression (e.g. granulocytopenia with ganciclovir, anaemia with zidovudine) or neurotoxicity (e.g. seizures with interferon-alpha, peripheral neuropathy with zalcitabine), although gastrointestinal effects are also seen. Idiosyncratic reactions include didanosine-induced acute pancreatitis. Only inosine pranobex is largely free from toxicity. Idoxuridine must be administered topically, given the severity of its systemic adverse effects. Drug interactions involving antiviral agents mostly reflect shared toxicity with other agents (e.g. neutropenia with ganciclovir and zidovudine, pancreatitis with didanosine and alcohol), although renal excretion or hepatic metabolism may be implicated. Given the possibility of severe adverse reactions and drug interactions, antiviral chemotherapy should only be used for potentially serious virus infections. Topical administration avoids systemic adverse effects but not mutagenic risks, and may result in exposure of individuals other than the patient (e.g. aerosolised ribavirin).

Amantadine and the analogue rimantadine have an antiviral effect on influenza A virus and are approximately 60% effective in preventing illness. The drugs are administered orally, and peak plasma concentration is achieved at two hours after a single dose. Side effects occur in 5-20% of the cases, but generally mild and transient and seen mainly with doses of more than 200 mg a day. This paper describes the mechanism of action and the pharmacokinetics of the drugs, and refers to some important clinical trials. Amantadine has been used in Norway to treat Parkinson's disease since 1972. The licensing of the amantadine and rimantadine for use against influenza A in this country is also discussed.

Influenza virus infections are one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Several antiviral agents, amantadine, rimantadine, and ribavirin, have been shown to be either therapeutically or prophylactically effective in influenza virus infections. Amantadine and rimantadine are effective, via the oral route, in treating and preventing influenza A infections. Aerosolized preparations of amantadine and rimantadine have also shown therapeutic efficacy against influenza A. Oral ribavirin has slight therapeutic efficacy in influenza A, but has also shown promising results in therapy of influenza B infections. Aerosolized ribavirin has also shown promise in treatment of patients who are severely ill with influenza A and B.

The effects of rimantadine on lymphocyte responses to mitogens CON-A and PHA, natural killer cell activity, and the development of serum and local antibodies were studied during an epidemic outbreak of influenza A (H3N2). Twenty-three families consisting of 38 adults and 46 children had a member who developed a flu-like illness and were randomly assigned to receive placebo or rimantadine either as treatment or post exposure prophylaxis. Nasal washings for virus isolation and IgG and IgA determination were collected on days 1, 5, and 10 of illness. Blood samples for immunologic studies were obtained on days 1 and 5 of clinical illness and on day 21. No differences in lymphocyte responses to CON-A and PHA or in natural-killer cell activity were noted between placebo and rimantadine groups. The development of neutralizing antibodies to influenza H3N2 was also not affected by rimantadine. However, the presence of IgA in nasal secretions was significantly diminished in the rimantadine group compared to the placebo group (0/9 vs. 6/9, P less than 0.005). The findings indicate that rimantadine had no adverse affect on the systemic immune system. However, local immune response was diminished in individuals taking rimantadine possibly due to the presence of less immunogen resulting from reduction of virus in secretions of individuals taking antivirals.

The safety and pharmacokinetics of rimantadine administered by small-particle aerosol were assessed in healthy adults and adults with acute influenza virus infection. Aerosolized rimantadine delivered at a concentration of 40 micrograms/liter of air was associated with nasal burning and irritation in normal volunteers. A concentration of 20 micrograms/liter of air was well tolerated for up to 12 h by normal volunteers and was not associated with any changes in pulmonary function, as measured by routine spirometry, plethysmography, or diffusion capacity of carbon monoxide. Mean peak levels of drug in serum were approximately 10-fold lower after 12 h of aerosol administration than they were after oral administration of 200 mg (29.7 versus 255 ng/ml, respectively), while mean nasal wash levels were approximately 100-fold higher (6,650 versus 66.6 ng/ml, respectively). Elimination half-lives were similar after both aerosol and oral administration (24.1 and 25.2 h, respectively), and rimantadine urinary excretion was less than 1% per 24 h in both groups. Twenty micrograms of aerosolized rimantadine per liter of air given 12 h daily for 3 days to nine adults with acute influenza virus infection was well tolerated. Levels in plasma after 12 h of aerosol inhalation were similar to those in normal volunteers, but were higher at the end of the third treatment than they were at the end of the first treatment (88.3 versus 47.9 ng/ml, respectively). Thus, rimantadine delivered via small-particle aerosol at a dose of 20 micrograms/liter of air was well tolerated in normal volunteers and in those with acute influenza and was associated with high local concentrations.

A placebo-controlled, double-blind study to evaluate the safety and prophylactic efficacy of a low dose (100 mg) of rimantadine hydrochloride against naturally occurring influenza in adults was conducted at two sites. After the onset of the influenza season, volunteers (ages, 18 to 55 years) were assigned randomly to receive rimantadine or placebo daily. Subjects were monitored for adverse effects and evidence of influenza virus infection weekly for six weeks. Only 10 (8.7%) of 114 rimantadine recipients and 5 (4.4%) of 114 placebo control recipients reported one or more mild to moderate adverse symptoms, most of which were related to the gastrointestinal or central nervous system. Compared with placebo, low-dose rimantadine was highly effective in the prevention of influenza A virus infection (20 of 110 versus 7 of 112 participants; P less than 0.01) and influenza illness (7 of 110 versus 1 of 112 participants; P = 0.04). Influenza A/Leningrad/87-like (H3N2) virus was recovered from the nasopharynxes of only five placebo recipients. These findings indicate that low-dose rimantadine is well tolerated and highly effective for the prevention of influenza A illness in healthy adults.

The prophylactic effectiveness of rimantadine hydrochloride (RH) during an outbreak of influenza A was evaluated in a double-blind study versus placebo (P). After identification of 111 homes with one affected member, 301 household contacts were enrolled and given either RH (151 contacts from 56 households) or a placebo (150 contacts from 55 households). Each treatment was given for ten days. Overall, at least one contact developed influenza in 8 of the 56 RH group households and 19 of the 55 placebo group households (p = 0.013). Numbers of contacts who developed influenza were 8/151 in the RH group and 26/150 in the placebo group. When only the 49 homes where influenza was confirmed by virological studies were considered, these numbers were 4/28 in the RH group and 10/21 in the placebo group (p = 0.011). Adverse effects were seen in 18 of the 151 subjects given RH (11.9 per cent) and 6 of the 150 subjects given the placebo (4 per cent). RH appeared as an effective prophylactic agent in a confirmed influenza A outbreak and was satisfactorily tolerated.

Progress is being made in the development of drugs for the prevention and treatment of viral respiratory infections. Two drugs currently available to clinicians are amantadine (Symmetral) and ribavirin (Virazole). Oral amantadine is effective for both treatment and prevention of uncomplicated influenza A infections. Although vaccination continues as the mainstay of influenza prevention, amantadine is useful for unvaccinated patients if complications are likely. When used for treatment, it must be started within the first 48 hours of illness. Ribavirin appears to be safe for treatment of respiratory syncytial virus infections in nonintubated infants. It must be delivered by aerosol in a hospital setting. Patients at risk for complications should be given the drug as early as possible in the course of the disease. Efficacy has yet to be proven in intubated patients, but the drug is probably safe to use with proper supervision. On the horizon are rimantadine and the interferons. Rimantadine is similar to amantadine in its action and indications for use and has a lower incidence of side effects. The interferons have not been the hoped-for panacea for viral respiratory infections but may be useful in a nasal spray for the prevention of colds caused by rhinovirus.

We evaluated the safety of rimantadine hydrochloride (RH) prophylaxis in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in three nursing homes during a community epidemic of influenza A (H3N2). Although daily monitoring of the 35 participants revealed an association between RH administration (100 mg twice a day) and the development of nausea and anxiety (P less than 0.05), these and other potential side effects were transient and were rarely considered to be clinically significant. Serum RH levels measured at the end of the trial (mean, 1,159 ng/ml) were nearly three times higher than those measured previously in younger individuals, suggesting that lower dosages may be indicated for the elderly.

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled study, the comparative toxicities and blood concentrations of amantadine hydrochloride and rimantadine hydrochloride were determined. Healthy, working adults ingested either 200 (n = 52) or 300 mg (n = 196) per day in divided doses for 4.5 days. Mean plasma drug concentrations at 4 h after the first dose were lower in rimantadine recipients given 100- (140 versus 300 ng/ml for rimantadine and amantadine, respectively; P less than 10(-5)) or 200-mg doses (310 versus 633 ng/ml; P less than 10(-5)). The plasma drug concentrations after the first dose correlated significantly with total symptom sources for both amantadine and rimantadine, but the plasma levels of toxic and nontoxic subjects overlapped extensively. At 300-mg/day dosage amantadine was associated more often with adverse central nervous system symptoms (33% of amantadine versus 9% of rimantadine recipients; P less than 0.001) and sleep disturbance (39 versus 13%; P less than 0.001), but not gastrointestinal symptoms (19.5 versus 16.0%). However, no differences between the drugs were noted in symptom frequency or scores in volunteers with similar plasma concentrations. Amantadine and rimantadine differ in their pharmacokinetics but not in their potential for side effects at comparable plasma concentrations.

Thirty-six adult volunteers were inoculated intranasally with 7.2 log10 egg infectious doses 50% of an attenuated A/Khabarovsk/77/H1N1 virus. Twenty-four hours later volunteers were begun on both aerosol treatments (rimantadine HCl 25 mg in saline or saline, 10 min exposure twice daily) and oral medications (rimantadine HCl 50 mg or placebo every 6 h, three times daily) which were administered for 5 days. Virus-positive volunteers receiving placebo by both of the two routes had a peak in clinical illness scores on the second treatment day (mean score 5.3), which was not observed in either the aerosol rimantadine (0.6) or oral rimantadine (0.9) treated volunteers. On the second treatment day, the proportion of virus-positive volunteers with elevated axillary temperature measurements and the mean peak temperature measurement were also significantly reduced in both drug groups. No significant effects on the duration of virus shedding were noted. In experimental influenza A virus infection, characterized by mild clinical illness and short duration of virus shedding, low doses of aerosolized rimantadine had a therapeutic effect comparable to that found with larger doses of oral rimantadine.

The efficacies of 200 mg of daily doses of amantadine and of rimantadine for prevention of infection and illness due to influenza A/USSR/77 (H1N1) virus were compared in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study on a college campus. Frequencies of symptoms that might have been side effects of the drugs were not significantly different from those in placebo recipients. Analyses indicated that the trial was initiated late in the epidemic and that an age-related protective effect against A/USSR virus existed; seroconversion frequencies were 52/139 (37%) among 18-19-year-olds, 33/130 (25%) among 20-21-year-olds, and 5/39 (12.8%) among 22-24-year-olds. Among initially antibody-negative (less than 1 : 4 in complement fixing and neutralizing tests and less than 1 : 8 in hemagglutination inhibition tests) 18-19-year-old students, amantadine was associated with significantly fewer seroconversions (P = 0.01) and both less infection and milder illness than occurred in placebo recipients (P less than 0.05). Although rimantadine was not accompanied by reduction in frequency of seroconversions in the same age group, illness frequency and severity among seroconverters were significantly reduced when compared to placebo recipients (P less than 0.01). Amantadine and rimantadine appear suitable for use in young adults. Although other studies have suggested greater effectiveness of rimantadine than of amantadine against influenza, no evidence for this was seen in the present study which used both drugs at the same dose.