Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in healthy adults

COVID-19 Pandemic: Outbreak, Potential Vaccines And Medications

The outbreak of the current global pandemic caused by the spread of a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has posed an unprecedented threat to global health and economy across the whole world. As of today, the number of cases diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 is exceeding 271 million with over 5.32 million deaths globally. Despite the high throughput technology and considerable advances in sciences, the outbreaks of the COVID-19 pandemic present a colossal challenge to scientific community. Scientists and clinicians all over the world are putting tremendous efforts to develop effective treatments to combat this deadly pathogen, at least to contain it momentarily until an adequate treatment regimen is available. Conventionally, vaccines have been developed as one of the therapeutic strategies to restrict infectious diseases. Although several vaccines are in the pipeline, evaluation of efficacy in animals’ studies and human are time-consuming. On the other hand, several drugs already in clinical use are being employed to test their efficacy against SARS-CoV-2. Some of these drugs have been already used as anti-viral drugs and others have been used for different therapeutic purposes. In this review, we summarize the ongoing efforts to control the dissemination of SARS-CoV-2 and highlight the potential prophylactic and therapeutic measures including the recently developed vaccines in the foreseeable future. Moreover, we emphasize an importance of having a customized strategy that can be easily and quickly employed to overcome possible future outbreaks.

Impact of Oseltamivir Treatment on Influenza A and B Virus Dynamics in Human Volunteers

Influenza viruses infect millions of humans every year causing an estimated 400,000 deaths globally. Due to continuous virus evolution current vaccines provide only limited protection against the flu. Several antiviral drugs are available to treat influenza infection, and one of the most commonly used drugs is oseltamivir (Tamiflu). While the mechanism of action of oseltamivir as a neuraminidase inhibitor is well-understood, the impact of oseltamivir on influenza virus dynamics in humans has been controversial. Many clinical trials with oseltamivir have been done by pharmaceutical companies such as Roche but the results of these trials until recently have been provided as summary reports or papers. Typically, such reports included median virus shedding curves for placebo and drug-treated influenza virus infected volunteers often indicating high efficacy of the early treatment. However, median shedding curves may be not accurately representing drug impact in individual volunteers. Importantly, due to public pressure clinical trials data testing oseltamivir efficacy has been recently released in the form of redacted PDF documents. We digitized and re-analyzed experimental data on influenza virus shedding in human volunteers from three previously published trials: on influenza A (1 trial) or B viruses (2 trials). Given that not all volunteers exposed to influenza viruses actually start virus shedding we found that impact of oseltamivir on the virus shedding dynamics was dependent on (i) selection of volunteers that were infected with the virus, and (ii) the detection limit in the measurement assay; both of these details were not well-articulated in the published studies. By assuming that any non-zero viral measurement is above the limit of detection we could match previously published data on median influenza A virus (flu A study) shedding but not on influenza B virus shedding (flu B study B) in human volunteers. Additional analyses confirmed that oseltamivir had an impact on the duration of shedding and overall shedding (defined as area under the curve) but this result varied by the trial. Interestingly, treatment had no impact on the rates at which shedding increased or declined with time in individual volunteers. Additional analyses showed that oseltamivir impacted the kinetics of the end of viral shedding, and in about 20-40% of volunteers that shed the virus treatment had no impact on viral shedding duration. Our results suggest an unusual impact of oseltamivir on influenza viruses shedding kinetics and caution about the use of published median data or data from a few individuals for inferences. Furthermore, we call for the need to publish raw data from critical clinical trials that can be independently analyzed.

Recent advances in the diagnosis and management of sepsis in pregnancy

Background: Maternal sepsis accounts for 11% of all maternal deaths worldwide. It is the third most common direct cause of maternal death and is a major contributor to other common causes of maternal death, such as haemorrhage and thromboembolism. Methods: This review addresses important topics, including the epidemiology, risk factors, prevention, diagnosis, care bundles and management of maternal sepsis, including antibiotic treatment, and critical care interventions such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Preventative measures that have had an impact on maternal sepsis as well as future research directions are also covered in this review. Case studies of maternal sepsis which highlight key learning points relevant to all clinicians involved in the management of obstetric patients will also be presented. Results: Although, historically, maternal death from sepsis was considered to be a problem for low-income countries, severe obstetric morbidity and maternal death from sepsis are increasing in high-income countries. The global burden of maternal sepsis and the obstetric-related and patient-related risk factors and the likely sources are presented. Recent changes in definition and nomenclature are outlined, and challenges in diagnosis and identification are discussed. Conclusions: Following maternal sepsis, early diagnosis and early intervention are critical to save lives and prevent long-term adverse sequelae. Dogma surrounding critical care interventions in pregnancy is being challenged, and future research is warranted to maximise therapeutic options available for maternal septic shock.

Oseltamivir for influenza in pregnancy

Pregnancy predisposes women to disproportionate morbidity and mortality from influenza infections. This is true for both seasonal epidemics as well as occasional pandemics. Inactivated yearly influenza vaccines are the best available method of disease prevention and are recommended for all pregnant women in any trimester of pregnancy and postpartum. Oseltamivir (Tamiflu(®)) is currently the first-line recommended and most commonly used pharmaceutical agent for influenza prophylaxis and treatment. Oseltamivir has been demonstrated to prevent disease among exposed individuals, as well as to shorten the duration of illness and lessen the likelihood of complications among those infected. The physiologic adaptations of pregnancy may alter the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of this important drug. Updated evidence regarding these potential alterations, current knowledge gaps, and future investigative directions is discussed.

Risk of bias in industry-funded oseltamivir trials: comparison of core reports versus full clinical study reports

BACKGROUND

The Cochrane risk of bias tool is a prominent instrument used to evaluate potential biases in clinical trials. In three updates of our Cochrane review on neuraminidase inhibitors, we assessed risk of bias on the same trials using different levels of detail: the trials in journal publications, in core reports, and in full clinical study reports. Here we analyse whether progressively greater amounts of information and detail in full clinical study reports (including trial protocols, statistical analysis plans, certificates of analyses, individual participant data listings and randomisation lists) affected our risk of bias assessments.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess and compare risk of bias in 14 oseltamivir trials (reported in 10 clinical study reports) obtained from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the manufacturer, Roche. With more detailed information, reported in clinical study reports, no previous assessment of 'high' risk of bias was reclassified as 'low' or 'unclear' in the main analysis, and over half (55%, 34/62) of the previous assessments of 'low' risk of bias were reclassified as 'high'. Most assessments of 'unclear' risk of bias (67%, or 28/42) were reclassified as 'high' risk of bias when our judgements were based on full clinical study reports. The limits of our study were our relative inexperience in dealing with large information sets, sometimes subjective bias judgements and focus on industry trials. Comparison with journal publications was not possible because of the low number of trials published.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that as information increased in the document, this increased our assessment of bias. This may mean that risk of bias has been insufficiently assessed in Cochrane reviews based on journal publications.

Economic evaluations of neuraminidase inhibitors to control influenza

Up to 10% of individuals present influenza-like illness each year. Neuraminidase inhibitors significantly reduce the median duration of influenza symptoms by 1.38 days and median time to return to normal activities by 0.9 days in adults. This review presents the economic evaluations of neuraminidase inhibitors in adults. The choice of key parameter estimates in cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis is sensitive to the perspective of analysis: healthcare payer or societal, including productivity gains. This review discusses, among other key parameters, the proportion of influenza-like illness due to the influenza virus (targeted by neuraminidase inhibitors and influenza vaccine), and the measure of health benefits by either quality-adjusted life years gained or willingness-to-pay for a day of symptoms averted. Overall, neuraminidase inhibitors are worth their costs and do not challenge annual influenza vaccination but should be seen as a complementary option to reduce the burden of influenza.

Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in healthy adults

BACKGROUND

Neuraminidase inhibitors (NI) are recommended for use against influenza and its complications in inter-pandemic years and during pandemics.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of NIs in preventing and treating influenza, its transmission, and its complications in otherwise healthy adults, and to estimate the frequency of adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 3) which contains the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1950 to August 2009) and EMBASE (1980 to August 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised placebo-controlled trials of NIs in healthy adults exposed to naturally occurring influenza.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently applied inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We structured the comparisons into prophylaxis, treatment, and adverse events, with further subdivision by outcome and dose.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four prophylaxis, 12 treatment and four post-exposure prophylaxis trials. In prophylaxis compared to placebo, NIs had no effect against influenza-like illnesses (ILI) (risk ratio (RR) ranging from 1.28 for oral oseltamivir 75 mg daily to 0.76 for inhaled zanamivir 10 mg daily). The efficacy of oral oseltamivir against symptomatic influenza was 76% (at 75 mg daily), and 73% (at 150 mg daily). Inhaled zanamivir 10 mg daily performed similarly. Neither NI had a significant effect on asymptomatic influenza. Oseltamivir induced nausea (odds ratio (OR) 1.79, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.93). Oseltamivir for post-exposure prophylaxis had an efficacy of 58% and 84% in two trials for households. Zanamivir performed similarly. The hazard ratios for time to alleviation of symptoms were in favour of the treated group 1.20 (1.06 to 1.35) for oseltamivir and 1.24 (1.13 to 1.36) for zanamivir. Because of the exclusion of a review of mainly unpublished trials of oseltamivir, insufficient evidence remained to reach a conclusion on the prevention of complications requiring antibiotics in influenza cases (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.37). Analysis of the US FDA and Japan's PMDA regulators' pharmacovigilance dataset, revealed incomplete reporting and description of harms preventing us from reaching firm conclusions on the central nervous system toxicity of neuraminidase inhibitors.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Numerous inconsistencies detected in the available evidence, followed by an inability to adequately access the data, has undermined confidence in our previous conclusions for oseltamivir. Independent RCTs to resolve these uncertainties are needed.

Cochrane Review: Interventions for the interruption or reduction of the spread of respiratory viruses

BACKGROUND

Viral epidemics or pandemics such as of influenza or severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) pose a significant threat. Antiviral drugs and vaccination may not be adequate to prevent catastrophe in such an event.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the evidence of effectiveness of interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses (excluding vaccines and antiviral drugs, which have been previously reviewed).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2006, issue 4); MEDLINE (1966 to November 2006); OLDMEDLINE (1950 to 1965); EMBASE (1990 to November 2006); and CINAHL (1982 to November 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We scanned 2300 titles, excluded 2162 and retrieved the full papers of 138 trials, including 49 papers of 51 studies. The quality of three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was poor; as were most cluster RCTs. The observational studies were of mixed quality. We were only able to meta-analyse case-control data. We searched for any interventions to prevent viral transmission of respiratory viruses (isolation, quarantine, social distancing, barriers, personal protection and hygiene). Study design included RCTs, cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-over studies, before-after, and time series studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We scanned the titles, abstracts and full text articles using a standardised form to assess eligibility. RCTs were assessed according to randomisation method, allocation generation, concealment, blinding, and follow up. Non-RCTs were assessed for the presence of potential confounders and classified as low, medium, and high risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

The highest quality cluster RCTs suggest respiratory virus spread can be prevented by hygienic measures around younger children. Additional benefit from reduced transmission from children to other household members is broadly supported in results of other study designs, where the potential for confounding is greater. The six case-control studies suggested that implementing barriers to transmission, isolation, and hygienic measures are effective at containing respiratory virus epidemics. We found limited evidence that the more uncomfortable and expensive N95 masks were superior to simple surgical masks. The incremental effect of adding virucidals or antiseptics to normal handwashing to decrease respiratory disease remains uncertain. The lack of proper evaluation of global measures such as screening at entry ports and social distancing prevent firm conclusions about these measures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Many simple and probably low-cost interventions would be useful for reducing the transmission of epidemic respiratory viruses. Routine long-term implementation of some of the measures assessed might be difficult without the threat of a looming epidemic.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses Although respiratory viruses usually only cause minor disease, they can cause epidemics. Approximately 10% to 15% of people worldwide contract influenza annually, with attack rates as high as 50% during major epidemics. Global pandemic viral infections have been devastating because of their wide spread. In 2003 the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic affected ˜8,000 people, killed 780, and caused an enormous social and economic crisis. A new avian influenza pandemic caused by the H5N1 strain might be more catastrophic. Single measures (particularly the use of vaccines or antiviral drugs) may be insufficient to interrupt the spread.We found 51 studies including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with a mixed risk of bias.Respiratory virus spread might be prevented by hygienic measures around younger children. These might also reduce transmission from children to other household members. Implementing barriers to transmission, isolation, and hygienic measures may be effective at containing respiratory virus epidemics. There was limited evidence that (more uncomfortable and expensive) N95 masks were superior to simple ones. Adding virucidals or antiseptics to normal handwashing is of uncertain benefit. There is insufficient evaluation of global measures such as screening at entry ports and social distancing.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review evidence for the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.

DATA EXTRACTION

Search strategy of the Cochrane Library, Medline, OldMedline, Embase, and CINAHL, without language restriction, for any intervention to prevent transmission of respiratory viruses (isolation, quarantine, social distancing, barriers, personal protection, and hygiene). Study designs were randomised trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and controlled before and after studies.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of 2300 titles scanned 138 full papers were retrieved, including 49 papers of 51 studies. Study quality was poor for the three randomised controlled trials and most of the cluster randomised controlled trials; the observational studies were of mixed quality. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis of most data except that from six case-control studies. The highest quality cluster randomised trials suggest that the spread of respiratory viruses into the community can be prevented by intervening with hygienic measures aimed at younger children. Meta-analysis of six case-control studies suggests that physical measures are highly effective in preventing the spread of SARS: handwashing more than 10 times daily (odds ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.57; number needed to treat=4, 95% confidence interval 3.65 to 5.52); wearing masks (0.32, 0.25 to 0.40; NNT=6, 4.54 to 8.03); wearing N95 masks (0.09, 0.03 to 0.30; NNT=3, 2.37 to 4.06); wearing gloves (0.43, 0.29 to 0.65; NNT=5, 4.15 to 15.41); wearing gowns (0.23, 0.14 to 0.37; NNT=5, 3.37 to 7.12); and handwashing, masks, gloves, and gowns combined (0.09, 0.02 to 0.35; NNT=3, 2.66 to 4.97). The incremental effect of adding virucidals or antiseptics to normal handwashing to decrease the spread of respiratory disease remains uncertain. The lack of proper evaluation of global measures such as screening at entry ports and social distancing prevent firm conclusions being drawn.

CONCLUSION

Routine long term implementation of some physical measures to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses might be difficult but many simple and low cost interventions could be useful in reducing the spread.

Interventions for the interruption or reduction of the spread of respiratory viruses

BACKGROUND

Viral epidemics or pandemics such as of influenza or severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) pose a significant threat. Antiviral drugs and vaccination may not be adequate to prevent catastrophe in such an event.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the evidence of effectiveness of interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses (excluding vaccines and antiviral drugs, which have been previously reviewed).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 4); MEDLINE (1966 to November 2006); OLDMEDLINE (1950 to 1965); EMBASE (1990 to November 2006); and CINAHL (1982 to November 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We scanned 2300 titles, excluded 2162 and retrieved the full papers of 138 trials, including 49 papers of 51 studies. The quality of three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was poor; as were most cluster RCTs. The observational studies were of mixed quality. We were only able to meta-analyse case-control data. We searched for any interventions to prevent viral transmission of respiratory viruses (isolation, quarantine, social distancing, barriers, personal protection and hygiene). Study design included RCTs, cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-over studies, before-after, and time series studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We scanned the titles, abstracts and full text articles using a standardised form to assess eligibility. RCTs were assessed according to randomisation method, allocation generation, concealment, blinding, and follow up. Non-RCTs were assessed for the presence of potential confounders and classified as low, medium, and high risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

The highest quality cluster RCTs suggest respiratory virus spread can be prevented by hygienic measures around younger children. Additional benefit from reduced transmission from children to other household members is broadly supported in results of other study designs, where the potential for confounding is greater. The six case-control studies suggested that implementing barriers to transmission, isolation, and hygienic measures are effective at containing respiratory virus epidemics. We found limited evidence that the more uncomfortable and expensive N95 masks were superior to simple surgical masks. The incremental effect of adding virucidals or antiseptics to normal handwashing to decrease respiratory disease remains uncertain. The lack of proper evaluation of global measures such as screening at entry ports and social distancing prevent firm conclusions about these measures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Many simple and probably low-cost interventions would be useful for reducing the transmission of epidemic respiratory viruses. Routine long-term implementation of some of the measures assessed might be difficult without the threat of a looming epidemic.

Prevention and control of influenza in persons with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Despite recommendations for annual vaccination against influenza, more than half of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in developed countries do not receive this vaccine. Influenza is characterized by its potentially of causing epidemics and by excess morbidity and mortality in patients with COPD and other chronic medical conditions. Good evidence of the efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination underlines the recommendation of use in patients with COPD. Influenza vaccination could reduce influenza-related complications and exacerbations in patients with COPD, therefore reducing hospitalizations and deaths. Each year, all persons with COPD should be vaccinated with the inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine containing the most frequent two influenza A viral strains and one influenza B viral strain detected in the influenza season of the previous year. To achieve a 100% vaccination rate in patients with COPD, all patients with COPD registered in health insurance companies and attended in health centers and specialized clinics should be vaccinated during the immunization period (October-December). Antiviral therapies could be used as an adjunct to vaccination and to reduce influenza transmission in outbreaks. Antiviral therapies could reduce the duration and complications of influenza when administered within two days of the onset of illness. Research is necessary for new antiviral therapies that could prevent influenza with cost-effectiveness similar to the influenza vaccine.

Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in healthy adults

BACKGROUND

Neuraminidase inhibitors (NI) are recommended for use against influenza and its complications in interpandemic years and in a pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of NIs in preventing or ameliorating influenza, its transmission and its complications in healthy adults and to estimate the frequency of adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (2004 to September, Week 4 2005), EMBASE (2003 to June 2005) and contacted manufacturers, researchers in the field, and authors of studies evaluated in the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised placebo-controlled studies of NIs in healthy adults exposed to naturally occurring influenza.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors applied inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We structured the comparisons into prophylaxis, treatment and adverse events with further subdivision by outcome and dose.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four prophylaxis, 13 treatment and four post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) trials. In prophylaxis compared to placebo, NIs have no effect against influenza-like illnesses (ILI) (relative risk (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 3.66 for oral oseltamivir 75 mg daily; RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.95 for inhaled zanamivir 10 mg daily). The efficacy of oral oseltamivir 75 mg daily against symptomatic influenza is 61% (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85), or 73% (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.67) at 150 mg daily. Inhaled zanamivir 10 mg daily is 62% efficacious (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.85). Neither NI has a significant effect on asymptomatic influenza. Oseltamivir induces nausea (odds ratio (OR) 1.79, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.93). Oseltamivir for PEP has an efficacy of 58.5% (15.6% to 79.6) for households and of 68% (34.9 to 84.2%) to 89% in contacts of index cases. Zanamivir has similar performance. The hazard ratios for time to alleviation of influenza symptoms were in favour of the treated group 1.33 (1.29 to 1.37) for zanamivir and 1.30 (1.13 to 1.50) for oseltamivir. Viral nasal titres were significantly diminished by both NIs. Oseltamivir 150 mg daily prevented lower respiratory tract complications (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.57). We could find no comparative data on the effects of oseltamivir on avian influenza.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Because of their low effectiveness, NIs should not be used in routine seasonal influenza control. In a serious epidemic or pandemic, NIs should be used with other public health measures. We are unsure of the generalisability of our conclusions from seasonal to pandemic or avian influenza.

The effect of giving influenza vaccination to general practitioners: a controlled trial [NCT00221676]

BACKGROUND

No efficacy studies of influenza vaccination given to GPs have yet been published. Therefore, our purpose was to assess the effect of an inactivated influenza vaccine given to GPs on the rate of clinical respiratory tract infections (RTIs) and proven influenza cases (influenza positive nose and throat swabs and a 4-fold titre rise), while adjusting for important covariates.

METHODS

In a controlled trial during two consecutive winter periods (2002-2003 and 2003-2004) we compared (77 and 100) vaccinated with (45 and 40) unvaccinated GPs working in Flanders, Belgium. Influenza antibodies were measured immediately prior to and 3-5 weeks after vaccination, as well as after the influenza epidemic. During the influenza epidemic, GPs had to record their contact with influenza cases and their own RTI symptoms every day. If they became ill, the GPs had to take nose and throat swabs during the first 4 days. We performed a multivariate regression analysis for covariates using Generalized Estimating Equations.

RESULTS

One half of the GPs (vaccinated or not) developed an RTI during the 2 influenza epidemics. During the two influenza periods, 8.6% of the vaccinated and 14.7% of the unvaccinated GPs had positive swabs for influenza (RR: 0.59; 95%CI: 0.28 - 1.24). Multivariate analysis revealed that influenza vaccination prevented RTIs and swab-positive influenza only among young GPs (ORadj: 0.35; 95%CI: 0.13 - 0.96 and 0.1; 0.01 - 0.75 respectively for 30-year-old GPs). Independent of vaccination, a low basic antibody titre against influenza (ORadj 0.57; 95%CI: 0.37 - 0.89) and the presence of influenza cases in the family (ORadj 9.24; 95%CI: 2.91 - 29) were highly predictive of an episode of swab-positive influenza.

CONCLUSION

Influenza vaccination was shown to protect against proven influenza among young GPs. GPs, vaccinated or not, who are very vulnerable to influenza are those who have a low basic immunity against influenza and, in particular, those who have family members who develop influenza.

Antivirals for influenza in healthy adults: systematic review

BACKGROUND

Use of antivirals is recommended for the control of seasonal and pandemic influenza. Our aim was to review the evidence of efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of registered antivirals against naturally occurring influenza in healthy adults.

METHODS

We searched various Databases to October, 2005, and contacted manufacturers and corresponding authors. We included randomised controlled trials comparing prophylactic (n=27) or treatment (n=27) efficacy against symptomatic or asymptomatic influenza. We did a meta-analysis and expressed prophylactic efficacy as a proportion (1-relative risk [RR]). For treatment trials, because of inconsistent and non-standardised reporting, we expressed continuous outcomes either as means or as hazard ratios.

FINDINGS

We included 51 reports of 52 randomised controlled trials. Amantadine prevented 61% (95% CI 35-76) of influenza A cases and 25% (13-36) of cases of influenza-like illness, but caused nausea (OR 2.56, 1.37-4.79), insomnia and hallucinations (2.54, 1.50-4.31), and withdrawals because of adverse events (2.54, 1.60-4.06). There was no effect on asymptomatic cases (RR 0.85, 0.40-1.80). In treatment, amantadine significantly shortened duration of fever compared with placebo (by 0.99 days, -1.26 to -0.71), but had no effect on nasal shedding of influenza A viruses (0.93, 0.71-1.21). The fewer data for rimantadine showed comparable effects. In prophylaxis, compared with placebo, neuraminidase inhibitors have no effect against influenza-like illness (1.28, 0.45-3.66 for oral oseltamivir 75 mg daily, 1.51, 0.77-2.95 for inhaled zanamivir 10 mg daily). Higher doses appear to make no difference. The efficacy of oral oseltamivir 75 mg daily against symptomatic influenza is 61% (15-82), or 73% (33-89) at 150 mg daily. Inhaled zanamivir 10 mg daily is 62% efficacious (15-83). Neither neuraminidase inhibitor appeared effective against asymptomatic influenza. Oseltamivir induces nausea (OR 1.79, 1.10-2.93), especially at higher prophylactic doses (2.29, 1.34-3.92). Oseltamivir in a post-exposure prophylaxis role has a protective efficacy of 58.5% (15.6-79.6) for households and from 68% (34.9-84.2) to 89% (67-97) in contacts of index cases. In influenza cases, compared with placebo the hazard ratios for time to alleviation of symptoms were 1.33, 1.29-1.37 for zanamivir; 1.30, 1.13-1.50 for oseltamivir provided medication was started within 48 h of symptom onset. Viral nasal titres were significantly diminished by both drugs (weighted mean difference -0.62, -0.82 to -0.41). Oseltamivir at 150 mg daily was effective in preventing lower respiratory tract complications in influenza cases (OR 0.32, 0.18-0.57). We could find no credible data on the effects of oseltamivir on avian influenza.

INTERPRETATION

The use of amantadine and rimantadine should be discouraged. Because of their low effectiveness, neuraminidase inhibitors should not be used in seasonal influenza control and should only be used in a serious epidemic or pandemic alongside other public-health measures.

Preventing influenza: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Many options are available for preventing people from getting infected by influenza virus, with vaccination being the most widely used.

METHODS

We assessed the evidence available in Cochrane systematic reviews. We found nine reviews, five of them addressing influenza vaccination, and four addressing medication.

RESULTS

Vaccination is effective in healthy adults and children, but the effect is modest in adults, and for young children few data are available. In patients with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cystic fibrosis, more evidence is needed to determine effectiveness. Vaccination does not result in exacerbation of asthma. Neuraminidase inhibitors may also have a place in limiting the spread of infection, at least in adults. Amantadine and rimantadine seem effective but have unfavourable adverse-effect profiles. The popularity of homoeopathic Oscillococcinum, especially in France, is not supported by current evidence.

CONCLUSION

In many areas, more clinical trials are needed, as the current evidence is inconclusive. Furthermore, several other measures that may be helpful in preventing influenza that have not been addressed in Cochrane reviews.

Management of acute bronchitis in healthy adults

Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are the most common infections in humans, accounting for half of all acute conditions each year in the United States. Acute bronchitis episodes represent a significant portion of these illnesses. This article focuses on acute bronchitis in otherwise healthy individuals.

Acute cough in the elderly: aetiology, diagnosis and therapy

Although the frequency of physician consultations and the sale of over-the-counter remedies establish the high prevalence of acute cough in the elderly, epidemiological studies have tended to be imprecise. However, respiratory tract infections in nose, larynx and/or bronchi, either viral or bacterial or both, are by far the commonest cause of acute cough. These are especially frequent and hazardous in the elderly, and community living and institutionalisation may aggravate this problem. A variety of viruses and bacteria have been incriminated, with rhinovirus, influenza and respiratory syncytial viruses, and Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenza and Bordetella pertussis being especially important. Viral infections can readily lead to community-acquired pneumonia. Successful diagnosis should point to successful treatment, and in this respect clinical examination and patient history are paramount, supplemented by chest X-ray, viral and bacterial culture and serological testing. Depending on the results of these tests, specific antibacterial therapy may be called for, although there is dispute as to the merits of antibacterial therapy in cases of uncertain diagnosis. Prevention and prophylaxis for influenza and S. pneumoniae infections are now commendably routine in the elderly, especially those in communities. Treatment, as well as the use of antibacterials, may also be directed against the inflammatory and infective processes in the airways. Non-specific antitussive therapy is common and usually highly desirable to prevent the adverse effects of repeated coughing. There have been few advances in antitussive therapy in recent years, opioids and dextromethorphan being the most commonly used agents; they act centrally on the brainstem, but also have a large placebo effect. However they work, they are much appreciated by patients and their partners. Moreover, striking advances in our understanding of the peripheral sensory and central nervous pathways of the cough reflex in recent years should soon lead to a new and more specific choice of agents to inhibit cough.

Effectiveness of neuraminidase inhibitors in treatment and prevention of influenza A and B: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To review the clinical effectiveness of oseltamivir and zanamivir for the treatment and prevention of influenza A and B.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Published studies were retrieved from electronic bibliographic databases; supplementary data were obtained from the manufacturers.

SELECTION OF STUDIES

Randomised controlled, double blind trials that were published in English, had data available before 31 December 2001, evaluated treatment or prevention of naturally occurring influenza with zanamivir or oseltamivir (if given using the formulation and dosage licensed for clinical use), and reported at least one end point of relevance.

REVIEW METHODS

The main outcome measures were the median time to the alleviation of symptoms (for treatment trials) and number of flu episodes avoided (for prevention trials). Three population groups were defined: children aged 12 years and under; otherwise healthy individuals aged 12 to 65 years; and "high risk" individuals (those with certain chronic medical conditions or aged 65 years and older).

RESULTS

Seventeen treatment trials and seven prevention trials identified met the inclusion criteria. All trials included compared one of the drugs against placebo or standard care. Treatment of children, otherwise healthy individuals, and high risk populations with zanamivir reduced the median duration of symptoms in days respectively by 1.0 (95% confidence interval 0.5 to 1.5), 0.8 (0.3 to 1.3), and 0.9 (-0.1 to 1.9) for the intention to treat population. The corresponding results, in days, for oseltamivir were 0.9 (0.3 to 1.5), 0.9 (0.3 to 1.4), and 0.4 (-0.7 to 1.4). The effect of giving zanamivir and oseltamivir prophylactically resulted in a relative reduction of 70-90% in the odds of developing flu, depending on the strategy adopted and the population studied.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from randomised controlled trials consistently supports the view that both oseltamivir and zanamivir are clinically effective for treating and preventing flu. However, evidence is limited for the treatment of certain populations and for all prevention strategies.

Principles of appropriate antibiotic use for treatment of uncomplicated acute bronchitis: background

The following principles of appropriate antibiotic use for adults with acute bronchitis apply to immunocompetent adults without complicating comorbid conditions, such as chronic lung or heart disease.1.

The evaluation of adults with an acute cough illness or a presumptive diagnosis of uncomplicated acute bronchitis should focus on ruling out serious illness, particularly pneumonia. In healthy, nonelderly adults, pneumonia is uncommon in the absence of vital sign abnormalities or asymmetrical lung sounds, and chest radiography is usually not indicated. In patients with cough lasting 3 weeks or longer, chest radiography may be warranted in the absence of other known causes.

2.

Routine antibiotic treatment of uncomplicated acute bronchitis is not recommended, regardless of duration of cough. If pertussis infection is suspected (an unusual circumstance), a diagnostic test should be performed and antimicrobial therapy initiated.

3.

Patient satisfaction with care for acute bronchitis depends most on physician–patient communication rather than on antibiotic treatment.

[Gonzales R, Bartlett JG, Besser RE, Cooper RJ, Hickner JM, Hoffman JR, Sande MA. Principles of appropriate antibiotic use for treatment of uncomplicated acute bronchitis: background. Ann Emerg Med. June 2001;37:720-727.]