Search

Repurposing of approved drugs allows strong savings in time and investment. Rimantadine is an FDA-approved drug for prevention and treatment of influenza A infection. Patent US2021330605 describes the use of rimantadine, an adamantane derivative, for the treatment of melanoma, breast cancer and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Rimantadine inhibited proliferation of cell lines of melanoma, breast cancer, and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, increased the survival of mice injected with cancer cell lines and restores the expression of MHC class I. Rimantadine has the potential to be used successfully in the treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Hepatitis A virus (HAV) infection is a major cause of acute viral hepatitis worldwide. Furthermore, HAV causes acute liver failure or acute-on-chronic liver failure. However, no potent anti-HAV drugs are currently available in the clinical situations. There have been some reports that amantadine, a broad-spectrum antiviral, suppresses HAV replication in vitro . Therefore, we examined the effects of amantadine and rimantadine, derivates of adamantane, on HAV replication, and investigated the mechanisms of these drugs. In the present study, we evaluated the effects of amantadine and rimantadine on HAV HM175 genotype IB subgenomic replicon replication and HAV HA11-1299 genotype IIIA replication in cell culture infection systems. Amantadine and rimantadine significantly inhibited HAV replication at the post-entry stage in Huh7 cells. HAV infection inhibited autophagy by suppressing the autophagy marker light chain 3 and reducing number of lysosomes. Proteomic analysis on HAV-infected Huh7 cells treated by amantadine and rimantadine revealed the changes of the expression levels in 42 of 373 immune response-related proteins. Amantadine and rimantadine inhibited HAV replication, partially through the enhancement of autophagy. Taken together, our results suggest a novel mechanism by which HAV replicates along with the inhibition of autophagy and that amantadine and rimantadine inhibit HAV replication by enhancing autophagy. IMPORTANCE Amantadine, a nonspecific antiviral medication, also effectively inhibits HAV replication. Autophagy is an important cellular mechanism in several virus-host cell interactions. The results of this study provide evidence indicating that autophagy is involved in HAV replication and plays a role in the HAV life cycle. In addition, amantadine and its derivative rimantadine suppress HAV replication partly by enhancing autophagy at the post-entry phase of HAV infection in human hepatocytes. Amantadine may be useful for the control of acute HAV infection by inhibiting cellular autophagy pathways during HAV infection processes.

Most of the patients infected with Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) develop chronic manifestations characterized by pain and deformity in joints, impacting their quality of life. The aminoadamantanes, in their turn, have been exploited due to their biological activities, with amantadine and memantine recently described with anti-CHIKV activities. Here we evaluated the antiviral activity of rimantadine hydrochloride (rtdH), a well-known antiviral agent against influenza A, its platinum complex (Pt-rtd), and the precursor cis-[PtCl 2 (dmso) 2 ], against CHIKV infection in vitro. The rtdH demonstrated significant antiviral activity in all stages of CHIKV replication (29% in pre-treatment; 57% in early stages of infection; 60% in post-entry stages). The Pt-rtd complex protected the cells against infection in 92%, inhibited 100% of viral entry, mainly by a virucidal effect, and impaired 60% of post-entry stages. Alternatively, cis-[PtCl 2 (dmso) 2 ] impaired viral entry in 100% and post-entry steps in 60%, but had no effect in protecting cells when administered prior to CHIKV infection. Collectively, the obtained data demonstrated that rtdH and Pt-rtd significantly interfered in the early stages of CHIKV life cycle, with the strongest effect observed to Pt-rtd complex, which reduced up to 100% of CHIKV infection. Moreover, molecular docking analysis and infrared spectroscopy data (ATR-FTIR) suggest an interaction of Pt-rtd with CHIKV glycoproteins, potentially related to the mechanism of inhibition of viral entry by Pt-rtd. Through a migration retardation assay, it was also shown that Pt-rtd and cis-[PtCl 2 (dmso) 2 ] interacted with the dsRNA in 87% and 100%, respectively. The obtained results highlight the repurposing potential of rtdH as an anti-CHIKV drug, as well as the synthesis of promising platinum(II) metallodrugs with potential application for the treatment of CHIKV infections. Importance Chikungunya fever is a disease that can result in persistent symptoms due to the chronic infection process. Infected patients can develop physical disability, resulting and high costs to the health system and significant impacts on the quality of life of affected individuals. Additionally, there are no licensed vaccines or antivirals against the Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) and the virus is easily transmitted due to the abundance of viable vectors in epidemic regions. In this context, our study highlights the repurposing potential of the commercial drug rimantadine hydrochloride (rtdH) as an antiviral agent for the treatment of CHIKV infections. Moreover, our data demonstrated that a platinum(II)-rimantadine metallodrug (Pt-rtd) poses as a potent anti-CHIKV molecule with potential application for the treatment of Chikungunya fever. Altogether, rtdH and Pt-rtd significantly interfered in the early stages of CHIKV life cycle, reducing up to 100% of CHIKV infection in vitro., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

There is a critical need to understand mechanisms of resistance and to develop combinatorial strategies to improve responses to checkpoint blockade immunotherapy (CBI). Here, we uncover a novel mechanism by which the human papillomavirus (HPV) inhibits the activity of CBI in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Using orthotopic HNSCC models, we show that radiation combined with anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy significantly enhanced local control, CD8 + memory T cells, and induced preferential T-cell homing via modulation of vascular endothelial cells. However, the HPV E5 oncoprotein suppressed immune responses by downregulating expression of major histocompatibility complex and interfering with antigen presentation in murine models and patient tumors. Furthermore, tumors expressing HPV E5 were rendered entirely resistant to anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy, and patients with high expression of HPV16 E5 had worse survival. The antiviral E5 inhibitor rimantadine demonstrated remarkable single-agent antitumor activity. This is the first report that describes HPV E5 as a mediator of resistance to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy and demonstrates the antitumor activity of rimantadine. These results have broad clinical relevance beyond HNSCC to other HPV-associated malignancies and reveal a powerful mechanism of HPV-mediated immunosuppression, which can be exploited to improve response rates to checkpoint blockade. SIGNIFICANCE: This study identifies a novel mechanism of resistance to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy mediated by HPV E5, which can be exploited using the HPV E5 inhibitor rimantadine to improve outcomes for head and neck cancer patients. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/canres/80/4/732/F1.large.jpg., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)

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.

Influenza virus infection is a major source of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Due to the variable effectiveness of existing vaccines, especially in the early stages of an epidemic, antiviral drugs represent the first line of defense against the virus. Currently, there are two major classes of anti-influenza drugs approved by the FDA for clinical use: M2 protein inhibitors (amantadine and rimantadine) and neuraminidase inhibitors (zanamivir and oseltamivir). However, increasing resistance to these available influenza antivirals among circulating influenza viruses highlights the need to develop alternative approaches for the prevention and/or treatment of influenza. This review presents an overview of currently available drugs for influenza treatment as well as summarizes some new antiviral strategies that are now being tested covering agents targeting both the viral proteins and the host-virus interaction. We discuss their mechanisms of action, resistance and the therapeutic potential as new antiviral drug for use in future influenza pandemics. Additionally, combination therapy based on these drugs is also described.

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.

The paper gives the results of monitoring the circulation of influenza viruses in the 2010-2011 season, that covers the second year of circulation of pandemic A(H1N1)v virus strains, and their interaction with seasonal A (H3N2) and B strains. Unlike the previous season, the beginning of an increase in morbidity was recorded in January 2011; its peak in the most of contiguous areas was noted at 5-7 weeks of 2011, with its further decline to threshold levels at week 11 of 2011. Preschool and school children were most involved in the epidemic process. Three influenza virus strains (A(H1N1)v, A(H3N2), and B) were found to circulate. Differences were found in the level of participation of the isolated strains in individual areas of the Russian Federation. Detailed typing of the isolated strains determined the compliance of the vast majority of them with vaccine viruses. The pandemic influenza A(H1N1)v virus strains retained their susceptibility to oseltamivir and were resistant to rimantadine. The participation of non-influenza acute respiratory viral infection pathogens was estimated as follows: 11.9% for parainfluenza viruses, 5.9% for adenoviruses, and 3.5% for PC viruses, and 0.7% for pneumonia Mycoplasma, which was comparable with the previous epidemic seasons.

Background: The 2009 influenza pandemic led to guidelines emphasizing antiviral treatment for all persons hospitalized with influenza, including pregnant women. We compared antiviral use among adults hospitalized with influenza before and during the pandemic., Methods: The Emerging Infections Program conducts active population-based surveillance for persons hospitalized with community-acquired, laboratory-confirmed influenza in 10 states. We analyzed data collected via medical record review of patients aged ≥18 years admitted during prepandemic (1 October 2005 through 14 April 2009) and pandemic (15 April 2009 through 31 December 2009) time frames., Results: Of 5943 adults hospitalized with influenza in prepandemic seasons, 3235 (54%) received antiviral treatment, compared with 4055 (82%) of 4966 during the pandemic. Forty-one (22%) of 187 pregnant women received antiviral treatment in prepandemic seasons, compared with 369 (86%) of 430 during the pandemic. Pregnancy was a negative predictor of antiviral treatment before the pandemic (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], .16-.35) but was independently associated with treatment during the pandemic (aOR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.32-2.96). Antiviral treatment among adults hospitalized >2 days after illness onset increased from 43% before the pandemic to 79% during the pandemic (P < .001)., Conclusions: Antiviral treatment of hospitalized adults increased during the pandemic, especially among pregnant women. This suggests that many clinicians followed published guidance to treat hospitalized adults with antiviral agents. However, compliance with antiviral recommendations could be improved.

Influenza infections have important socio-economic consequences. Risk groups identified so far include small children and elderly adults with comorbidities. In recent years in addition to seasonal influenza an outbreak of avian influenza occurred in 2005 and the new H1N1 pandemic occurred in 2009. For the latter other at risk groups were affected and a different clinical course has been documented. The focus of this article is to give an overview on the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, diagnosis and therapy of influenza infections.

The amino acid and peptide derivatives of 1-adamantane carboxylic acid and rimantadine (18 compounds) have been first synthesized and investigated for their activity against influenza A virus (H1N1, H1N1v). In a series of obtained adamantine derivatives, some compounds have been found to be able to inhibit rimantadine-resistant influenza A virus strains. Thus, the antiviral properties of rimantadine can be restored.

The paper describes the specific features of the 2009-2010 epidemic season in Russia and the world, which are due to the wide spread of a new pandemic strain of influenza A(H1N1)v virus. There is an unusual early upsurge in the incidence of influenza and acute respiratory viral infection (ARVI) (in October-November 2009) with its peak at weeks 45 to 48 of the year with a succeeding reduction to the seasonal values by its end. The circulation of influenza B virus strains was recorded in February-April 2010, which was responsible for the higher epidemic thresholds of morbidity in a number of Russia's regions. A study of the antigenic properties of the strains defined their relationship to the reference strains A/California/07/2009 (H1N1)v and B/Brisbene/60/2008. There were strains with amino acid substitutions at position 222 of hemagglutinin in the population of pandemic influenza A(H1N1)v virus. The strains of the new pandemic influenza A(H1N1)v virus were resistant to remantadine and susceptible to oseltamivir, zanamivir, and arbidol. The influenza B virus strains were susceptible to oseltamivir, zanamivir, and arbidol. The proportion of pathogens of some ARVIs was as follows: parainfluenza viruses, 9.8%; adenoviruses, 5.5%; respiratory syncytial virus, 4.8%; and Mycoplasma pneumonia, 0.6%. There is evidence that there is a need for further monitoring of influenza viruses in Russia.

The data on cytotoxicity and antiviral activity of commercial antivirals, such as Remantadine, Oseltamivir, Arbidol and Ribavirin in the MDCK cell culture infected with highly pathogenic (H5N1) and pandemic 2009 (H1N1) influenza A viruses are presented. The study of the antiviral activity of antivirals in the MDCK cells culture demonstrated that Arbidol, Rimantadine and Ribavirin efficiently inhibited reproduction of the highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza viruses isolated from sick birds. Arbidol and Oseltamivir carboxylate selectively inhibited reproduction of the pandemic 2009 H1N1 influenza A viruses with changed specificity to the cell receptors, causing severe influenza in men, while remantadine had no effect on their reproduction.

Efficacy of combination of the intramuscularly administered neuraminidase (NA) inhibitor, peramivir, and the orally administered M2 ion channel blocker, rimantadine was evaluated in mouse influenza A/Victoria/3/75 (H3N2) model. Mice were challenged with a sub-lethal virus dose (0-40% mortality in placebo group) and changes in body weights were analyzed by three-dimensional effect analysis to assess mode of drug interactions. Compounds were administered in a 5-day treatment course starting 1h before viral inoculation. The peramivir and rimantadine doses ranged from 0.3-3 mg/kg/d and 5-30 mg/kg/d, respectively. The maximum mean weight loss of 5.19 g was observed in the vehicle-infected group on day 10. In the 1 and 3 mg/kg/d peramivir monotherapy groups, the weight losses were 4.3 and 3.55 g, respectively. In the rimantadine monotherapy group, the weight losses were 3.43, 2.1, and 1.64 g for the 5, 10, and 30 mg/kg/d groups, respectively. Combination of 1mg/kg/d peramivir with 5 and 10 mg/kg/d rimantadine produced weight losses of 1.69 and 0.69 (p<0.05 vs. vehicle and individual agent), respectively, whereas the combination of 3.0 mg/kg/d peramivir with 10 and 30 mg/kg/d rimantadine did not show any weight loss (p<0.05 vs. vehicle and individual agent). The three-dimensional analysis of the weight loss for the majority of the drug combinations of peramivir and rimantadine tested demonstrated synergistic antiviral effects., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In December 2008, new interim guidelines on the use of influenza antiviral agents were released in response to a high prevalence of circulating oseltamivir-resistant seasonal influenza A(H1N1) and adamantane-resistant influenza A(H3N2) viruses. Zanamivir, oseltamivir +/- an adamantane, or oseltamivir was recommended, depending on virus type, subtype, and local surveillance data., Materials and Methods: Information about antiviral prescribing practices among IDSA Emerging Infections Network (EIN) members was obtained using two web-based questionnaires; one in January 2009 regarding the prior 2007-08 influenza season and one in April 2009 (prepandemic), regarding the concurrent 2008-09 season., Results: In the 2007-08 survey, 646 (52%) of 1249 EIN members responded and in the 2008-09 season survey, 350 (27%) of 1281 responded. In 2008-09 vs. 2007-08: 59% vs. 69% prescribed or recommended antivirals for treatment (p<.0001); 48% vs. 80% prescribed oseltamivir alone and 39% vs. 10% prescribed zanamivir alone (p<.0001 for both). During 2008-09 28% reported treating fewer patients compared with 2007-08; 42% felt antivirals were less effective due to resistance and 40% felt patients had less severe illness. During 2008-09, 42% of respondents reported difficulty providing zanamivir to patients vs. 5% for oseltamivir (p<.0001). Only 11% of respondents could test for influenza A subtype. During both seasons, ~55% used local surveillance data to make treatment decisions., Discussion: A mild winter influenza season, difficulty obtaining recommended agents, and lack of access to subtype diagnosis and surveillance data may have contributed to reduced antiviral use during 2008-09., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The aminoadamantanes, amantadine and rimantadine, have been used to prevent and treat influenza A virus infections for many years. Several reports have shown an increased level of resistance to these drugs, particularly among influenza A(H3N2) subtype viruses, during recent years. We observed an increase in amantadine resistance, due to a Ser31Asn mutation in the M2 channel protein, among A(H3N2) viruses circulating in Iran during 2005-2007. Sequence analyses of the haemagglutinin and neuraminidase genes as well as the M gene of these viruses revealed that the emergence of resistance was in general consistent with the progressive worldwide evolution of H3N2 viruses., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The study of the antiviral activity of Russian anti-influenza agents in the cultured MDCK cells demonstrated that arbidol and ribavirin inhibited the reproduction of various influenza A virus strains, including rimantadine- and ozeltamivir-resistant variants, as well as influenza B viruses (IC50 2-8.5 microg/ml). Rimantadine at concentrations of 1-5 microg/ml completely inhibited the reproduction of reference and ozeltamivir-resistant influenza A virus strains, and it had no effect on the reproduction of influenza B viruses and rimantadine-resistant influenza A viruses. Arbidol and ribavirin also inhibited the reproduction of pandemic influenza A/California/04/2009(H1N1), A/California/07/2009(H1N1), and A/Moscow/01/2009(H1N1)swl viruses in the cultured MDCK cells (IC50 = 1.5-4.0 microg/ml) while rimantadine had no effect on their reproduction. The cultured cells showed no significant antiviral activity of ingavirin at nontoxic concentrations (up to 200 microg/ml) against all study strains of influenza A and B viruses, including pandemic A(H1N1) influenza virus strains. The activity of rimantadine, arbidol, and ingavirin was found on a model of Influenza pneumonia in mice infected with their adopted influenza A/Aichi/2/69(H3N2) virus. The preventive efficacy of the three test agents was similar and most pronounced when they were used 96 hours before infection, by preventing 40-50% death in the animals and their body weight loss and by increasing their survival by 1.3-1.5 times. Arbidol and rimantadine were more effective when used for treatment and prophylaxis in doses of 30 and 10 mg/kg/day, respectively, by protecting the infected animals from 60-80% death, increasing their survival by 1.7-2 times, and preventing their body weight loss as compared with the control. The same experiments with ingavirin showed that this agent was less effective than arbidol and rimantadine. Thus, arbidol and rimantadine have a pronounced antiviral infection in both cell culture and a model of influenza pneumonia. The found efficacy of ingavirin on an integral model of murine influenza pneumonia without its activity in the cultured cells is likely to be due to other pharmacological properties of the drug rather than its direct virus-specific action.

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.

Influenza is a major threat to millions of people worldwide. Vaccines and antiviral agents are two main options available to reduce the impact of the influenza virus, while anti-influenza agents are the most effective means to prevent the transmission of the highly contagious virus and to treat the epidemics of disease. At present, four anti-influenza agents have been approved by the FDA for the treatment of influenza, including two M2 protein ion channel inhibitors-amantadine and rimantadine and two neuraminidase inhibitors-zanamivir and oseltamivir. Arbidol hydrochloride, launched in Russia, is a potent inhibitor of influenza virus, too. Neuraminidase inhibitors could be classified generally by structure into six different kinds: sialic acid derivatives, benzoic acid derivatives, cyclohexene derivatives, cyclopentane derivatives, pyrrolidine derivatives and natural products. In this paper, recent progress in the research of the action mechanisms and structure-activity relationships of these anti-influenza virus agents were reviewed.

Ingavirin was shown to be efficient in inhibition of the pandemic influenza virus strains A/California/04/2009 (H1N1)v, A/California/07/2009 (H1N1)v, A/Moscow/225/2009 (H1N1)v and A/Moscow/226/2009 (H1N1)v. as well as the influenza virus strain A/Aichi/2/68 (H3N2) in the lungs of the infected mice. After oral administration of Ingavirin the titers of the influenza virus strains in the lung homogenates lowered.

Background: Adamantane-derived drugs have been used for treatment and prophylaxis of influenza A virus infection for many years worldwide. Rapid surveillance of antiviral drug resistance is important for appropriate clinical guideline development. Here, we retrospectively assessed adamantane resistance among different influenza A subtypes (H1N1, H3N2 and H5N1) over 53 years (1956-2009) in mainland China., Methods: A total of 1,451 viruses, including 773 H3N2 viruses, 647 H1N1 viruses and 31 human H5N1 viruses, were analysed by matrix gene sequencing and assayed for drug resistance., Results: Our results show that the prevalence of adamantane-resistant H3N2 viruses was low between 1956 and 2002, but substantially increased in 2003 to the extent that since 2006 all H3N2 viruses have been drug resistant. The percentage of adamantane-resistant H1N1 viruses also increased from 50.0% in 2004 to 98.7% in 2007; however, this decreased to 46.7% in 2009. Only three adamantane-resistant H5N1 viruses have been detected since 2003, when the first case of human H5N1 virus infection was detected in mainland China. Phylogenetic analysis demonstrated that the increase of adamantane-resistant isolates was caused by point mutations or intrasubtype reassortment instead of intersubtype reassortment., Conclusions: Because of the high percentage of adamantane-resistant H3N2 and H1N1 viruses in mainland China, the use of amantadine and rimantadine drugs for prophylaxis and treatment of current seasonal influenza A infection is not recommended.

The 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus emerged in the United States in April 2009 and has since spread worldwide. Influenza activity resulting from this virus occurred throughout the summer and, by late August, activity had begun to increase in the southeastern United States. Since August, activity has increased in all regions of the United States. As of the week ending October 31, nearly all states were reporting widespread disease. Since April 2009, pandemic H1N1 has remained the dominant circulating influenza strain. This report summarizes U.S. influenza activity from August 30, 2009, defined as the beginning of the 2009-10 influenza season, through October 31, 2009.

Introduction: During the autumn-winter months (influenza seasons), influenza circulates more frequently, causing a greater proportion of influenza-like illness, and sometimes serious seasonal epidemics. The incidence of infection depends on the underlying immunity of the population., Methods and Outcomes: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of vaccines to prevent influenza? What are the effects of antiviral chemoprophylaxis of influenza? What are the effects of antiviral medications to treat influenza? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2008 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)., Results: We found 21 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions., Conclusions: In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: vaccines, amantadine, oseltamivir, zanamivir, rimantadine.

Along with influenza vaccines, the world is currently almost completely dependent on two licensed drugs for the treatment or prevention of seasonal (influenza A and B viruses) and pandemic influenza (influenza A viruses). These drugs - oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza) - are classified as neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) because they act by inhibiting one of the key surface proteins of the influenza virus, the neuraminidase, which in turn reduces the ability of the virus to infect other respiratory cells. Our dependence on these drugs has arisen because of high levels of resistance with seasonal influenza viruses to the older class of anti-influenza drugs, the adamantanes (amantadine and rimantadine), combined with the lack of activity of these drugs against influenza B viruses. Recently, however, significant levels of oseltamivir-resistant influenza A(H1) seasonal influenza viruses have also been encountered, which has been associated with a single amino acid change in the viral neuraminidase (H274Y). Oseltamivir is the most widely used and stockpiled NAI and, while these A(H1) viruses are still sensitive to zanamivir, it highlights the ease with which the influenza virus can mutate and reassort to circumvent available drugs. Fortunately, the current pandemic A(H1N1) 2009 virus, which is circulating globally, remains largely sensitive to both NAIs, although a small number of oseltamivir-resistant viruses have been isolated from patients to date, again with the H274Y mutation. Clearly there is a need to use the NAI drugs prudently to ensure they remain an effective defence against future seasonal and pandemic influenza viruses, along with careful monitoring of levels of resistance in the circulating viruses combined with the further development of new anti-influenza drugs.

Unlabelled: The hepatitis C virus (HCV) p7 protein plays a critical role during particle formation in cell culture and is required for virus replication in chimpanzees. The discovery that it displayed cation channel activity in vitro led to its classification within the "viroporin" family of virus-coded ion channel proteins, which includes the influenza A virus (IAV) M2 protein. Like M2, p7 was proposed as a potential target for much needed new HCV therapies, and this was supported by our finding that the M2 inhibitor, amantadine, blocked its activity in vitro. Since then, further compounds have been shown to inhibit p7 function but the relationship between inhibitory effects in vitro and efficacy against infectious virus is controversial. Here, we have sought to validate multiple p7 inhibitor compounds using a parallel approach combining the HCV infectious culture system and a rapid throughput in vitro assay for p7 function. We identify a genotype-dependent and subtype-dependent sensitivity of HCV to p7 inhibitors, in which results in cell culture largely mirror the sensitivity of recombinant protein in vitro; thus building separate sensitivity profiles for different p7 sequences. Inhibition of virus entry also occurred, suggesting that p7 may be a virion component. Second site effects on both cellular and viral processes were identified for several compounds in addition to their efficacy against p7 in vitro. Nevertheless, for some compounds antiviral effects were specific to a block of ion channel function., Conclusion: These data validate p7 inhibitors as prototype therapies for chronic HCV disease. (HEPATOLOGY 2008;48:1779-1790.).

Antivirals are effective in prophylaxis and therapy for influenza and are likely to be active against a new pandemic variant. They can be divided into the M2 inhibitors, adamantane and rimantadine, and the neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs), zanamivir and oseltamivir. The former are limited in activity to type A viruses, whereas the latter are also active against type B viruses. Both classes of drugs appear similarly efficacious in prophylaxis at approximately 70-90%. However, use of M2 inhibitors (adamantanes) in therapy is limited by side effects, more common with amantadine, and also by production of antiviral resistance and lack of demonstrated prevention of complications. The NAIs prevent both types of seasonal influenza, shorten duration of illness, and reduce complications. As such, their use for seasonal influenza treatment has been increasing. They are active against A(H5N1) but oseltamivir has been most extensively stockpiled because the infection in humans may be disseminated. Resistance does emerge, but not at the same frequency as with the M2 inhibitors. Resistant viruses also appear less fit and thus less able to spread. However, as use increases, resistance needs to be carefully monitored.

Adamantanopyrrolidines 8, 9 and 10, adamantanopyrrolidines 16 and 18, adamantanoxazolone 20, adamantanopyrazolone 23, adamantanopyrazolothione 24 and adamantanocyclopentanamine 32 were synthesized and tested for anti-influenza A virus and trypanocidal activity. The stereoelectronic requirements for optimal antiviral and trypanocidal potency were investigated. Pyrrolidine 16 proved to be the most active of the compounds tested against influenza A virus, being 4-fold more active than amantadine, equipotent to rimantadine and 19-fold more potent than ribavirin. Oxazolone 20 showed significant trypanocidal activity against bloodstream forms of the African trypanosome, Trypanosoma brucei, being approximately 3 times more potent than rimantadine and almost 50-fold more active than amantadine.

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.

Investigation of the therapeutic efficacy of Ingavirin (Valenta Farmacevtica, Russia) against influenza virus A (H3N2) vs. Tamiflu, Remantadin and Arbidol showed that in daily doses of 15 and 20 mg/kg (equal by the efficacy to the human doses of 90 and 120 mg) Ingavirin was effective in protection of the albino mice infected by the virus in a dose of 10 to 15 LD50. The protective efficacy was 38.3-39.2% and the increase of the average lifespan amounted to 4.2-4.4 days. The Ingavirin efficacy was comparable with that of Remantadine, markedly exceeded that of Arbidol and was lower than that of Tamiflu. Investigation of the Ingavirin influence in doses of 15 and 20 mg/kg on the dynamics and level of the influenza virus A/Aichi/2/68 reproduction in the lungs of the infected albino mice weighing 10-12 g revealed that during the whole observation period in the doses tested Ingavirin was effective in inhibition of the influenza virus reproduction. During the whole period of the observation (5 days) Ingavirin was effective in inhibiting the formation of the virus specific hemagglutinin in the target organ.

Antiviral agents are the most effective treatment option for influenza. Two classes of drugs are available, the adamantanes and the neuraminidase inhibitors. Neuraminidase inhibitors were a major breakthrough in the treatment options for influenza and were licensed in the year 2000. They have an excellent safety profile and effectively reduce viral shedding, symptoms, duration of illness, secondary complications, hospitalizations and consumption of antibiotics. Patients have also shown a more rapid return to everyday activities. The therapeutic efficacy is highly dependent on the time between the onset of symptoms and the starting of therapy. Very early initiation is primordial to have a maximal effect. Neuraminidase inhibitors are also effective in primary and secondary prophylaxis during epidemic influenza. They are a key point in the pandemic preparedness. Resistance to neuraminidase inhibitors does occur but has not become an extensive problem so far.

The adamantanes (amantadine and rimantadine) were the first antivirals licensed for use against influenza A viruses and have been used in some countries to control seasonal influenza. While increasing resistance of A(H3) viruses to this class of drug has been reported in recent years, only low levels of resistance were seen with A(H1) viruses until the 2005-2006 influenza season in the USA. In this study we analysed 101 human influenza A viruses isolated in 2006 that were referred to the WHO Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research in Melbourne, from Australia and the surrounding regions, for evidence of resistance to adamantanes. We found that whereas previously A(H1) resistant viruses were rare, 21.8% of the 2006 viruses had a resistant genotype. By comparison, 58.6% of influenza A(H3) viruses isolated in 2006 that were tested at the Centre, had a resistant genotype.

Influenza A and B are important causes of respiratory illness in all age groups. Influenza causes seasonal outbreaks globally, and (rarely) pandemics. In the United States, seasonal influenza epidemics account for > 200,000 hospitalizations and > 30,000 deaths annually. More than 90% of deaths are in the elderly. The toll is considerably higher during pandemics. Clinical features of influenza infection overlap with other respiratory pathogens (particularly viruses). The diagnosis is often delayed due to low suspicion and the limited use of specific diagnostic tests. Rapid diagnostic tests are widely available and allow detection of influenza antigen in respiratory secretions within 1 hour; however, sensitivity ranges from 40 to 80%. Currently, four drugs are available to treat or prevent influenza. These include the adamantanes (i.e., amantadine and rimantadine) and the neuraminidase inhibitors (i.e., oseltamivir and zanamivir). Adamantanes are active against influenza A but not influenza B. However, recent emergence of adamantane resistance has rendered these agents ineffective. Hence, adamantanes are not currently recommended in the United States. The neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) are effective in treating influenza A or B, and for prophylaxis in selected adults and children. Resistance to NAIs is rare, but influenza strains resistant to oseltamivir have been detected. Vaccines are the cornerstone of influenza control. Currently, trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV) and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) are available. These agents reduce mortality and morbidity in high-risk patients (i.e., the elderly or patients with comorbidities), and expanding the use of vaccines to healthy children and adults reduces the incidence of influenza, pneumonia, and hospitalizations due to respiratory illnesses in the community.

Influenza is a highly contagious and debilitating disease that imposes an excess burden of complications and mortality. Antiviral therapy is the primary intervention for treatment and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) of influenza. Amantadine and rimantadine are members of the M2 class of antiviral agents and are moderately effective in influenza management. However, their utility is compromised by high levels of resistance, tolerability concerns and a lack of efficacy against influenza B. An alternative class of agents, the neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs), represent the most advanced form of antiviral therapy available, and act by specifically inhibiting the neuraminidase enzymes that are present on all influenza subtypes. Two NIs, oseltamivir and zanamivir, are currently available for clinical use. Oseltamivir, the most widely used NI, is administered orally as a prodrug (oseltamivir carboxylate) and systemically distributed to all potential infection sites. Zanamivir, a second NI, is administered by inhalation via a disk inhaler and deposited primarily in the respiratory tract. When administered within 48 hours of symptom onset, both agents significantly reduce illness duration and symptom severity, and decrease the rate of influenza-associated complications. With oseltamivir, greater benefits are detected with earlier treatment initiation (<12 hours). In PEP, both NIs effectively protect the close contacts of index cases from symptomatic influenza. Oseltamivir and zanamivir are generally well tolerated and associated with a low level of resistance. Emerging evidence supports the activity of both NIs against the H5N1avian influenza infection, which is a pandemic candidate. However, the WHO currently recommends the use of oseltamivir for the management of suspected cases, given the systemic nature of the H5N1 challenge. Ongoing studies are exploring the effectiveness of oseltamivir, zanamivir and other NIs for pandemic management.

Influenza viruses cause respiratory tract infections that in patients with underlying lung diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are associated with exacerbations and excess morbidity and mortality. Typically, influenza B is associated with relatively mild, local outbreaks, whereas influenza A is the cause of world-wide pandemics. Upon infection, two antigens present on the viral surface, hemagglutinin and neuraminidase result in human immunity, but since many subtypes of these antigens exist that vary over time, immunity in the population is blunted. Vaccination is advocated in high-risk groups including patients with underlying (lung) diseases and in the elderly, and needs to be repeated annually with vaccines expected to cover the expected change in viral antigenicity. When started early, antiviral drugs, especially neuraminidase-inhibitors can be prescribed in adjunct to nonspecific interventions in an attempt to shorten disease duration and to prevent complications in case of an influenza infection. Currently, the effectiveness of antiviral drugs specifically in patients with COPD has not been proven.

The goals of antiviral treatment for influenza are to decrease symptoms and functional disability and, more important, to decrease associated complications, hospitalizations, and mortality. Four drugs have been approved for treatment of and prophylaxis against influenza in the United States, but they are underutilized. The M2 ion channel inhibitors amantadine and rimantadine are effective for prophylaxis, and they decrease the duration of symptoms if they are used for early treatment of influenza A. The rapid emergence of resistance during therapy and, recently, the circulation of resistant H3N2 viruses in the community have decreased the usefulness of these M2 ion channel inhibitors. Early therapy with neuraminidase (NA) inhibitors, either oseltamivir or zanamivir, reduces the duration of symptoms, the duration of disability, and the risk of lower respiratory tract complications. Oseltamivir has been shown to decrease antibiotic use, the number of hospitalizations, and, probably, the risk of death after influenza. NA inhibitors might provide substantial benefits in the treatment of pandemic influenza, with reductions in the numbers of hospitalizations and deaths occurring if such treatment (1) is made available in sufficient time, through rapid distribution, and (2) is available in sufficient quantities as a result of stockpiling. Both of the aforementioned NA inhibitors are highly effective for prophylaxis. Geographically targeted mass chemoprophylaxis might contain the spread of a pandemic virus, but multiple hurdles to successful implementation exist. Resistance to oseltamivir occurs with the H274Y variant in viruses that contain N1; however, to date, such variants have been less fit, have not been transmitted from person to person, and have retained susceptibility to zanamivir. Alternative agents and approaches, including parenteral and combination therapy, for the treatment of influenza are needed in the near and long term.

The paper analyzes data of an experimental study of the efficacy of antiviral agents (amantadine, remantadine, ozeltamivir, zanamivir, arbidol, ribavirin) in the cultured cells and on a model of murine influenza pneumonia against influenza A viruses subtype H5N1. It also gives data on their use in the treatment of human beings during avian influenza outbreak. The mechanism of action of the agents, pharmacokinetics, adverse reactions, and their potential resistance are considered.

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.