Dataset Information

Influenza Treatment: Limitations of Antiviral Therapy and Advantages of Drug Combination Therapy.

ABSTRACT: Influenza infection is serious and debilitating for humans and animals. The influenza virus undergoes incessant mutation, segment recombination, and genome reassortment. As a result, new epidemics and pandemics are expected to emerge, making the elimination challenging of the disease. Antiviral therapy has been used for the treatment of influenza since the development of amantadine in the 1960s; however, its use is hampered by the emergence of novel strains and the development of drug resistance. Thus, combinational therapy with two or more antivirals or immunomodulators with different modes of action is the optimal strategy for the effective treatment of influenza infection. In this review, we describe current options for combination therapy, their performance, and constraints imposed by resistance, calling attention to the advantages of combination therapy against severe influenza infections. We also discuss the challenges of influenza therapy and the limitations of approved antiviral drugs.

SUBMITTER: Batool S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9865513 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Influenza Treatment: Limitations of Antiviral Therapy and Advantages of Drug Combination Therapy.

Batool Sania S Chokkakula Santosh S Song Min-Suk MS

Microorganisms 20230111 1

Influenza infection is serious and debilitating for humans and animals. The influenza virus undergoes incessant mutation, segment recombination, and genome reassortment. As a result, new epidemics and pandemics are expected to emerge, making the elimination challenging of the disease. Antiviral therapy has been used for the treatment of influenza since the development of amantadine in the 1960s; however, its use is hampered by the emergence of novel strains and the development of drug resistance ...[more]

PMID: 36677475

Similar Datasets

Project description:Widespread resistance among circulating influenza A strains to at least one of the anti-influenza drugs is a major public health concern. A triple combination antiviral drug (TCAD) regimen comprised of amantadine, oseltamivir, and ribavirin has been shown to have synergistic and broad spectrum activity against influenza A strains, including drug resistant strains. Here, we used mathematical modeling along with three different experimental approaches to understand the effects of single agents, double combinations, and the TCAD regimen on resistance in influenza in vitro, including: 1) serial passage at constant drug concentrations, 2) serial passage at escalating drug concentrations, and 3) evaluation of the contribution of each component of the TCAD regimen to the suppression of resistance. Consistent with the modeling which demonstrated that three drugs were required to suppress the emergence of resistance in influenza A, treatment with the TCAD regimen resulted in the sustained suppression of drug resistant viruses, whereas treatment with amantadine alone or the amantadine-oseltamivir double combination led to the rapid selection of resistant variants which comprised ∼100% of the population. Furthermore, the TCAD regimen imposed a high genetic barrier to resistance, requiring multiple mutations in order to escape the effects of all the drugs in the regimen. Finally, we demonstrate that each drug in the TCAD regimen made a significant contribution to the suppression of virus breakthrough and resistance at clinically achievable concentrations. Taken together, these data demonstrate that the TCAD regimen was superior to double combinations and single agents at suppressing resistance, and that three drugs at a minimum were required to impede the selection of drug resistant variants in influenza A virus. The use of mathematical modeling with multiple experimental designs and molecular readouts to evaluate and optimize combination drug regimens for the suppression of resistance may be broadly applicable to other infectious diseases.

Project description:BackgroundInfluenza continues to have a substantial socioeconomic and health impact despite a long established vaccination programme and approved antivirals. Preclinical data suggest that combining antivirals might be more effective than administering oseltamivir alone in the treatment of influenza.MethodsWe did a randomised, double-blind, multicentre phase 2 trial of a combination of oseltamivir, amantadine, and ribavirin versus oseltamivir monotherapy with matching placebo for the treatment of influenza in 50 sites, consisting of academic medical centre clinics, emergency rooms, and private physician offices in the USA, Thailand, Mexico, Argentina, and Australia. Participants who were aged at least 18 years with influenza and were at increased risk of complications were randomly assigned (1:1) by an online computer-generated randomisation system to receive either oseltamivir (75 mg), amantadine (100 mg), and ribavirin (600 mg) combination therapy or oseltamivir monotherapy twice daily for 5 days, given orally, and participants were followed up for 28 days. Blinded treatment kits were used to achieve masking of patients and staff. The primary endpoint was the percentage of participants with virus detectable by PCR in nasopharyngeal swab at day 3, and was assessed in participants who were randomised, had influenza infection confirmed by the central laboratory on a baseline nasopharyngeal sample, and had received at least one dose of study drug. Safety assessment was done in all patients in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01227967.FindingsBetween March 1, 2011, and April 29, 2016, 633 participants were randomly assigned to receive combination antiviral therapy (n=316) or monotherapy (n=317). Seven participants were excluded from analysis: three were not properly randomised, three withdrew from the study, and one was lost to follow-up. The primary analysis included 394 participants, excluding 47 in the pilot phase, 172 without confirmed influenza, and 13 without an endpoint sample. 80 (40·0%) of 200 participants in the combination group had detectable virus at day 3 compared with 97 (50·0%) of 194 (mean difference 10·0, 95% CI 0·2-19·8, p=0·046) in the monotherapy group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal-related disorders, primarily nausea (65 [12%] of 556 reported adverse events in the combination group vs 63 [11%] of 585 reported adverse events in the monotherapy group), diarrhoea (56 [10%] of 556 vs 64 [11%] of 585), and vomiting (39 [7%] of 556 vs 23 [4%] of 585). There was no benefit in multiple clinical secondary endpoints, such as median duration of symptoms (4·5 days in the combination group vs 4·0 days in the monotherapy group; p=0·21). One death occurred in the study in an elderly participant in the monotherapy group who died of cardiovascular failure 13 days after randomisation, judged by the site investigator as not related to study intervention.InterpretationAlthough combination treatment showed a significant decrease in viral shedding at day 3 relative to monotherapy, this difference was not associated with improved clinical benefit. More work is needed to understand why there was no clinical benefit when a difference in virological outcome was identified.FundingNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, USA.

Dataset Information

Influenza Treatment: Limitations of Antiviral Therapy and Advantages of Drug Combination Therapy.

Publications

Influenza Treatment: Limitations of Antiviral Therapy and Advantages of Drug Combination Therapy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets