Amantadine and rimantadine for influenza A in children and the elderly

Identification of potential inhibitors of three key enzymes of SARS-CoV2 using computational approach

The recent outbreak of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) continues to drastically affect healthcare throughout the world. To date, no approved treatment regimen or vaccine is available to effectively attenuate or prevent the infection. Therefore, collective and multidisciplinary efforts are needed to identify new therapeutics or to explore effectiveness of existing drugs and drug-like small molecules against SARS-CoV-2 for lead identification and repurposing prospects. This study addresses the identification of small molecules that specifically bind to any of the three essential proteins (RdRp, 3CL-protease and helicase) of SARS-CoV-2. By applying computational approaches we screened a library of 4574 compounds also containing FDA-approved drugs against these viral proteins. Shortlisted hits from initial screening were subjected to iterative docking with the respective proteins. Ranking score on the basis of binding energy, clustering score, shape complementarity and functional significance of the binding pocket was applied to identify the binding compounds. Finally, to minimize chances of false positives, we performed docking of the identified molecules with 100 irrelevant proteins of diverse classes thereby ruling out the non-specific binding. Three FDA-approved drugs showed binding to 3CL-protease either at the catalytic pocket or at an allosteric site related to functionally important dimer formation. A drug-like molecule showed binding to RdRp in its catalytic pocket blocking the key catalytic residues. Two other drug-like molecules showed specific interactions with helicase at a key domain involved in catalysis. This study provides lead drugs or drug-like molecules for further in vitro and clinical investigation for drug repurposing and new drug development prospects.

Peramivir binding affinity with influenza A neuraminidase and research on its mutations using an induced-fit docking approach

Influenza A virus (IAV) has caused epidemic infections worldwide, with many strains resistant to inhibitors of a surface protein, neuraminidase (NA), due to point mutations on its structure. A novel NA inhibitor named peramivir was recently approved, but no exhaustive computational research regarding its binding affinity with wild-type and mutant NA has been conducted. In this study, a thorough investigation of IAV-NA PDB entries of 9 subtypes is described, providing a list of residues constituting the protein-ligand binding sites. The results of induced-fit docking approach point out key residues of wild-type NA participating in hydrogen bonds and/or ionic interactions with peramivir, among which Arg 368 is responsible for a peramivir-NA ionic interaction. Mutations on this residue greatly reduced the binding affinity of peramivir with NA, with 3 mutations R378Q, R378K and R378L (NA6) capable of deteriorating the docking performance of peramivir by over 50%. 200 compounds from 6-scaffolds were docked into these 3 mutant versions, revealing 18 compounds giving the most promising results. Among them, CMC-2012-7-1527-56 (benzoic acid scaffold, IC50 = 32 nM in inhibitory assays with IAV) is deemed the most potential inhibitor of mutant NA resisting both peramivir and zanamivir, and should be further investigated.

Antiviral Treatments

Most viral respiratory tract infections are caused by classic respiratory viruses, including influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, human metapneumovirus, parainfluenza, rhinovirus, and adenovirus, whereas other viruses, such as herpes simplex, cytomegalovirus, and measles virus, can opportunistically affect the respiratory tract. The M2 inhibitors, amantadine and rimantadine, were historically effective for the prevention and treatment of influenza A but all circulating strains are currently resistant to these drugs. Neuraminidase inhibitors are the sole approved class of antivirals to treat influenza. Ribavirin, especially when combined with intravenous antibody, reduces morbidity and mortality among immunosuppressed patients.

The pharmacological management of severe influenza infection - 'existing and emerging therapies'

INTRODUCTION

Over the last century several influenza outbreaks have traversed the globe, most recently the influenza A(H1N1) 2009 pandemic. On each occasion, a highly contagious, virulent pathogen has emerged, leading to significant morbidity and mortality amongst those affected. Areas covered: Early antiviral therapy and supportive care is the mainstay of treatment. Treatment should be started as soon as possible and not delayed for the results of diagnostic testing. Whilst oseltamivir is still the first choice, in case of treatment failure, oseltamivir resistance should be considered, particularly in immunosuppressed patients. Here we review the antivirals currently used for management of influenza and explore a number of investigational agents that may emerge as effective antivirals including parenteral agents, combination antiviral therapy and novel agents in order to adequately target influenza virulence. Expert Commentary: New tools for rapid diagnosis and susceptible strains will help if a patient is not improving because of a resistant strain or an inadequate immune response. Further randomized control trials will be conducted to investigate the use of new antivirals and co-adjuvant therapies that will help to elucidate the process of immune modulation, particularly in immunocompetent patients.

Amantadine and rimantadine for influenza A in children and the elderly

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.

Azapropellanes with anti-influenza a virus activity

The synthesis of several [4,4,3], [4,3,3], and [3,3,3]azapropellanes is reported. Several of the novel amines displayed low-micromolar activities against an amantadine-resistant H1N1 strain, but they did not show activity against an amantadine-sensitive H3N2 strain. None of the tested compounds inhibit the influenza A/M2 proton channel function. Most of the compounds did not show cytotoxicity for MDCK cells.

Aminoadamantanes versus other antiviral drugs for chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus infection affects around 3% of the world population or approximately 160 million people. A variable proportion (5% to 40%) of the infected people develop clinical symptoms. Hence, hepatitis C virus is a leading cause of liver-related morbidity and mortality with hepatic fibrosis, end-stage liver cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma as the dominant clinical sequelae. Combination therapy with pegylated (peg) interferon-alpha and ribavirin achieves sustained virological response (that is, undetectable hepatitis C virus RNA in serum by sensitivity testing six months after the end of treatment) in approximately 40% to 80% of treated patients, depending on viral genotype. Recently, a new class of drugs have emerged for hepatitis C infection, the direct acting antivirals, which in combination with standard therapy or alone can lead to sustained virological response in 80% or more of treated patients. Aminoadamantanes, mostly amantadine, are antiviral drugs used for the treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C. We have previously systematically reviewed amantadine versus placebo or no intervention and found no significant effects of the amantadine on all-cause mortality or liver-related morbidity and on adverse events in patients with hepatitis C. Overall, we did not observe a significant effect of amantadine on sustained virological response. In this review, we systematically review aminoadamantanes versus other antiviral drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of aminoadamantanes versus other antiviral drugs for patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection by conducting a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (1996 to December 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 11 of 12, 2013), MEDLINE (1946 to December 2013), EMBASE (1974 to December 2013), Science Citation Index EXPANDED (1900 to December 2013), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), Google Scholar, and Eudrapharm up to December 2013. Furthermore, full text searches were conducted until December 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing aminoadamantanes in participants with chronic hepatitis C virus infection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data. RevMan Analysis was used for statistical analysis of dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological domains were used to assess the risk of systematic errors ('bias'). We used trial sequential analysis to assess risk of random errors ('play of chance').

MAIN RESULTS

Six randomised clinical trials with 581 participants with chronic hepatitis C were included. All trials had high risk of bias. The included trials compared amantadine versus other antiviral drugs: ribavirin, mycophenolate mofetil, interferon-alpha, or interferon-gamma. Standard antiviral therapy (interferon-alpha, interferon-alpha plus ribavirin, or peg interferon alpha) was administered equally to the intervention and the control groups in five trials, depending on when the trial was conducted. Four trials compared amantadine versus ribavirin. There were no deaths or liver-related morbidity in the two intervention groups (0/216 (0%) versus 0/211 (0%); 4 trials; very low quality of the evidence). The lower estimated risk for (serious) adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation with amantadine was imprecise (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.16; based on 10/216 (5%) versus 18/211 (9%) participants in 4 trials; very low quality of the evidence). There were more participants with failure of sustained virological response in the amantadine group than in the ribavirin group (206/216 (96%) versus 176/211 (84%); RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.22, 4 trials; low quality of the evidence). Amantadine versus ribavirin more often failed to achieve end-of follow-up biochemical response (41/46 (89%) versus 31/46 (67%); RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.63; 2 trials; very low quality of the evidence). One trial compared amantadine versus mycophenolate mofetil. There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups, except that amantadine was inferior to mycophenolate mofetil regarding the outcome failure to achieve end-of treatment virological response (low quality of evidence). One trial each compared amantadine versus interferon-alpha or interferon-gamma. Both comparisons showed no significant differences in the treatment outcomes (very low quality of the evidence). The observed effects could be due to real effects, systematic errors (bias), or random errors (play of chance). This possible influence on the observed effect by play of chance is due to the fact that trial sequential analyses could not confirm our findings. We were not able to perform meta-analyses on failure of histological improvement and quality of life due to lack of valid data in all trial comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review has identified evidence of very low quality for the key outcomes of all-cause mortality or liver-related morbidity and adverse events in people with chronic hepatitis C when treated with amantadine compared with ribavirin, mycophenolate, interferon-alpha, or interferon-gamma. The timeframe for measuring the composite outcome was insufficient in the included trials. There was low quality evidence that amantadine led to more participants who failed to achieve sustained virological response compared with ribavirin. This observation may be real or caused by systematic errors (bias), but it does not seem to be caused by random error (play of chance). Due to the low quality of the evidence, we are unable to determine definitively whether amantadine is less effective than other antivirals in patients with chronic hepatitis C. As it appears less likely that future trials assessing amantadine or potentially other aminoadamantanes for patients with chronic hepatitis C would show strong benefits, it is probably better to focus on the assessments of other direct acting antiviral drugs. We found no evidence assessing other aminoadamantanes in randomised clinical trials in order to recommend or refute their use.

Aminoadamantanes for chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

Around 3% of the world's population (approximately 160 million people) are chronically infected with hepatitis C virus. The proportion of infected people who develop clinical symptoms varies between 5% and 40%. Combination therapy with pegylated interferon-alpha plus ribavirin eradicates the virus from the blood six months after treatment (sustained virological response) in approximately 40% to 80% of infected patients, depending on the viral genotype. New antiviral agents, such as boceprevir and telaprevir, in combination with standard therapy, can increase sustained virological response in genotype 1 infected patients to at least 70%. There is therefore an unmet need for drugs that can achieve a higher proportion of sustained virological response. Aminoadamantanes are antiviral drugs used for treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of aminoadamantanes for patients with chronic hepatitis C infection by conducting a systematic review with meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials, as well as trial sequential analyses.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (1996 to December 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2013, Issue 11 of 12 (1995 to December 2013), MEDLINE (1946 to December 2013), EMBASE (1974 to December 2013), Science Citation Index EXPANDED (1900 to December 2013), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), Google Scholar, and Eudrapharm up to December 2013 and checked the reference lists of identified publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing aminoadamantanes in patients with chronic hepatitis C infection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data. We assessed for risks of systematic errors ('bias') using the 'Risk of bias' tool. We analysed dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) and continuous data with mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used trial sequential analysis to assess the risk of random errors ('play of chance'). We assessed quality using the GRADE system.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 randomised clinical trials with 6193 patients with chronic hepatitis C. All trials had high risk of bias. All included trials compared amantadine versus placebo or no intervention. Standard antiviral therapy was administered equally to the intervention and the control groups in 40 trials. The standard antiviral therapy, which was administered to both intervention groups, was interferon-alpha, interferon-alpha plus ribavirin, and peg interferon-alpha plus ribavirin, depending on the time when the trial was conducted.When we meta-analysed all trials together, the overall results demonstrated no significant effects of amantadine, when compared with placebo or no intervention, on our all-cause mortality or liver-related morbidity composite outcome (5/2353 (0.2%) versus 6/2264 (0.3%); RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.17; I² = 0%; 32 trials; very low quality). There was also no significant effect on adverse events (288/2869 (10%) versus 293/2777 (11%); RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.14; I² = 0%; 35 trials; moderate quality). We used both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Amantadine, when compared with placebo or no intervention, did not significantly influence the number of patients who failed to achieve a sustained virological response (1821/2861 (64%) versus 1737/2721 (64%); RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.02; I² = 35%; 35 trials; moderate quality). However, in the subgroup using interferon plus ribavirin, amantadine decreased the number of patients who failed to achieve a sustained virological response (422/666 (63%) versus 447/628 (71%); RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.96; I² = 41%; 11 trials; low quality). Similar results were found for failure to achieve an end of treatment virological response. Amantadine, when compared with placebo or no intervention, significantly decreased the number of patients without normalisation of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) serum levels at the end of treatment (671/1141 (59%) versus 732/1100 (67%); RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; I² = 47%; 19 trials; low quality). Amantadine, when compared with placebo or no intervention, did not significantly influence the end of follow-up biochemical response (1133/1896 (60%) versus 1151/1848 (62%); RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.00; I² = 49%; 21 trials; low quality).The observed beneficial effects could be true effects but could also be due to both systematic errors (bias) and random errors (play of chance). The latter is due to the fact that trial sequential analyses could not confirm or refute our findings. We were not able to perform meta-analyses for failure of histological improvement or quality of life due to a lack of valid data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review does not demonstrate any significant effects of amantadine on all-cause mortality or liver-related morbidity composite outcome and on adverse events in patients with hepatitis C; however, the median trial duration was 12 months, with a median follow-up of six months, which is not long enough to assess the composite outcome sufficiently. Overall, we did not see an effect of amantadine on failure to achieve a sustained virological response. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the combination of amantadine plus interferon-alpha and ribavirin seems to increase the number of patients achieving a sustained virological response. This finding may be caused by both systematic errors (bias) and risks of random errors (play of chance), but it could also be real. Based on the results of the overall evidence, it appears less likely that future trials assessing amantadine for patients with chronic hepatitis C will show strong benefits. Therefore, it is probably advisable to wait for the results of trials assessing other direct-acting antiviral drugs. In the absence of convincing evidence of benefit, the use of amantadine is justified in the context of randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of combination therapy. We found a lack of evidence on other aminoadamantanes than amantadine.

Role of the viral hemagglutinin in the anti-influenza virus activity of newly synthesized polycyclic amine compounds

We here report on the synthesis of new series of polycyclic amines initially designed as ring-rearranged analogs of amantadine and featuring pentacyclo, hexacyclo, and octacyclo rings. A secondary amine, 3-azahexacyclo[7.6.0.0¹,⁵.0⁵,¹².0⁶,¹⁰.0¹¹,¹⁵]pentadeca-7,13-diene, 3, effectively inhibited A/M2 proton channel function, and, moreover, possessed dual activity against an A/H3N2 virus carrying a wild-type A/M2 proton channel, as well as an amantadine-resistant A/H1N1 virus. Among the polycyclic amines that did not inhibit influenza A/M2 proton channel function, several showed low-micromolar activity against tested A/H1N1 strains (in particular, the A/PR/8/34 strain), but not A/H3N2 influenza viruses. A/PR/8/34 mutants selected for resistance to these compounds possessed mutations in the viral hemagglutinin that markedly increased the hemolysis pH. Our data suggest that A/H1N1 viruses such as the A/PR/8/34 strain are particularly sensitive to a subtle increase in the endosomal pH, as caused by the polycyclic amine compounds.

Protecting pediatric oncology patients from influenza

Influenza is a common respiratory pathogen. Its severity can be unpredictable, but people with chronic illness are at increased risk of severe infection, complications, and death from influenza. This review examines evidence to support various strategies to protect pediatric oncology patients from influenza-related morbidity. Influenza vaccination should be considered standard. Additional evidence-supported measures include antiviral treatment, antiviral prophylaxis, cohorting of patients, and hospital infection control measures. Data from other high-risk populations support the vaccination of family members, double-dose or high-dose vaccination, and the use of barrier methods. These measures have the potential to optimize patient outcomes because there will be fewer treatment interruptions for acute illness. These strategies can also protect patients from prolonged hospitalizations and morbidity related to influenza.

Synthesis and Anti-influenza A Virus Activity of 2,2-Dialkylamantadines and Related Compounds

The synthesis of several 2,2-dialkyladamantyl-1-amines through the combination of a Ritter reaction with a Wagner-Meerwein rearrangement from noradamantane alcohols is reported. Several of the novel amines displayed low micromolar activities against several H1N1 influenza virus strains, including the amantadine-resistant A/PuertoRico/8/34 strain. Most of the compounds did not show cytotoxicity for MDCK cells.

Antivirals for treatment of influenza: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

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.