Influenza virus resistance to oseltamivir: what are the implications?

Prevention and Control of Influenza Viruses

The 2003–2004 outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) have proven to be disastrous to the regional poultry industry in Asia, and have raised serious worldwide public health apprehension regarding the steps that should be taken to urgently control HPAI. Control measures must be taken based on the principles of biosecurity and disease management and at the same time making public aware of the precautionary measures at the verge of outbreak. Creation of protection and surveillance zones, various vaccination strategies viz. routine, preventive, emergency, mass and targeted vaccination programmes using live, inactivated and recombinant vaccines are the common strategies adopted in different parts of the globe. The new generation vaccines include recombinant vaccines and recombinant fusion vaccine. The pro-poor disease control programmes, giving compensation and subsidies to the farmers along with effective and efficient Veterinary Services forms integral part of control of HPAI. Following biosecurity principles and vaccination forms integral part of control programme against swine and equine influenza as well. Use of neuraminidase (NA) inhibitors (Zanamivir and Oseltamivir) for the treatment of human influenza has been widely accepted worldwide. The threat of increasing resistance of the flu viruses to these antivirals has evoked interest in the development of novel antiviral drugs for influenza virus such as inhibitors of cellular factors and host signalling cascades, cellular miRNAs, siRNA and innate immune peptides (defensins and cathelicidins). Commercial licensed inactivated vaccines for humans against influenza A and B viruses are available consisting of three influenza viruses: influenza type A subtype H3N2, influenza type A subtype H1N1 (seasonal) virus strain and influenza type B virus strain. As per WHO, use of tetravaccine consisting of antigens of influenza virus serotypes H3N2, H1N1, B and H5 is the most promising method to control influenza pandemic. All healthy children in many countries are required to be vaccinated between 6 and 59 months of age. The seasonal vaccines currently used in humans induce strain-specific humoral immunity as the antibodies. Universal influenza virus vaccines containing the relatively conserved ectodomain of M2 (M2e), M1, HA fusion peptide and stalk domains, NA, NP alone or in combination have been developed which have been shown to induce cross-protection. The T cell-based vaccines are another recent experimental approach that has been shown to elicit broad-spectrum heterosubtypic immunity in the host. As far as HPAI is concerned, various pandemic preparedness strategies have been documented.

Oseltamivir-resistant pandemic A(H1N1) 2009 influenza viruses detected through enhanced surveillance in the Netherlands, 2009-2010

Enhanced surveillance of infections due to the pandemic A(H1N1) influenza virus, which included monitoring for antiviral resistance, was carried out in the Netherlands from late April 2009 through late May 2010. More than 1100 instances of infection with the pandemic A(H1N1) influenza virus from 2009 and 2010 [A(H1N1) 2009] distributed across this period were analyzed. Of these, 19 cases of oseltamivir-resistant virus harboring the H275Y mutation in the neuraminidase (NA) were detected. The mean 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) levels for oseltamivir- and zanamivir-susceptible A(H1N1) 2009 viruses were 1.4-fold and 2-fold, respectively, lower than for the seasonal A(H1N1) influenza viruses from 2007/2008; for oseltamivir-resistant A(H1N1) 2009 virus the IC50 was 2.9-fold lower. Eighteen of the 19 patients with oseltamivir-resistant virus showed prolonged shedding of the virus and developed resistance while on oseltamivir therapy. Sixteen of these 18 patients had an immunodeficiency, of whom 11 had a hematologic disorder. The two other patients had another underlying disease. Six of the patients who had an underlying disease died; of these, five had received cytostatic or immunosuppressive therapy. No indications for onward transmission of resistant viruses were found. This study showed that the main association for the emergence of cases of oseltamivir-resistant A(H1N1) 2009 virus was receiving antiviral therapy and having drug-induced immunosuppression or an hematologic disorder. Except for a single case of a resistant virus not linked to oseltamivir therapy, the absence of detection of resistant variants in community specimens and in specimens from contacts of cases with resistant virus suggested that the spread of resistant A(H1N1) 2009 virus was limited. Containment may have been the cumulative result of impaired NA function, successful isolation of the patients, and prophylactic measures to limit exposure.

Oseltamivir in seasonal, avian H5N1 and pandemic 2009 A/H1N1 influenza: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics

Oseltamivir is the ester-type prodrug of the neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir carboxylate. It has been shown to be an effective treatment for both seasonal influenza and the recent pandemic 2009 A/H1N1 influenza, reducing both the duration and severity of the illness. It is also effective when used preventively. This review aims to describe the current knowledge of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of this agent, and to address the issue of possible therapeutic drug monitoring. According to the currently available literature, the pharmacokinetics of oseltamivir carboxylate after oral administration of oseltamivir are characterized by mean ± SD bioavailability of 79 ± 12%, apparent clearance of 25.3 ± 7.0 L/h, an elimination half-life of 7.4 ± 2.5 hours and an apparent terminal volume of distribution of 267 ± 122 L. A maximum plasma concentration of 342 ± 83 μg/L, a time to reach the maximum plasma concentration of 4.2 ± 1.1 hours, a trough plasma concentration of 168 ± 32 μg/L and an area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 hours of 6110 ± 1330 μg · h/L for a 75 mg twice-daily regimen were derived from literature data. The apparent clearance is highly correlated with renal function, hence the dosage needs to be adjusted in proportion to the glomerular filtration rate. Interpatient variability is moderate (28% in apparent clearance and 46% in the apparent central volume of distribution); there is no indication of significant erratic or limited absorption in given patient subgroups. The in vitro pharmacodynamics of oseltamivir carboxylate reveal wide variation in the concentration producing 50% inhibition of influenza A and B strains (range 0.17-44 μg/L). A formal correlation between systemic exposure to oseltamivir carboxylate and clinical antiviral activity or tolerance in influenza patients has not yet been demonstrated; thus no formal therapeutic or toxic range can be proposed. The pharmacokinetic parameters of oseltamivir carboxylate after oseltamivir administration (bioavailability, apparent clearance and the volume of distribution) are fairly predictable in healthy subjects, with little interpatient variability outside the effect of renal function in all patients and bodyweight in children. Thus oseltamivir carboxylate exposure can probably be controlled with sufficient accuracy by thorough dosage adjustment according to patient characteristics. However, there is a lack of clinical study data on naturally infected patients. In addition, the therapeutic margin of oseltamivir carboxylate is poorly defined. The usefulness of systematic therapeutic drug monitoring in patients therefore appears to be questionable; however, studies are still needed to extend the knowledge to particular subgroups of patients or dosage regimens.

Combined inhalational and oral supplementation of ascorbic acid may prevent influenza pandemic emergency: a hypothesis

Occurrence of influenza pandemics is a worldwide phenomenon and a significant cause of mortality and morbidity throughout the globe. It is due to mutations in the influenza virus genetic material creating antigenic drift of pathogenic viral proteins resulting in emergence of new influenza virus strains. Therefore, the vaccines available for prevention of influenza offer no protection against influenza pandemics caused by new virus strains. Moreover, the existing drugs used to combat influenza may be ineffective to treat influenza pandemics due to the emergence of drug resistance in the pandemic virus strain. Therefore, a working strategy must be developed to combat influenza pandemics. In this review we have addressed this problem and reviewed the published studies on ascorbic acid in the common cold and influenza and laboratory studies on the effect of ascorbic acid on influenza virus. We have also correlated the clinical and laboratory studies and developed a hypothesis to prevent influenza pandemics.

Age-prioritized use of antivirals during an influenza pandemic

Background

The WHO suggested that governments stockpile, as part of preparations for the next influenza pandemic, sufficient influenza antiviral drugs to treat approximately 25% of their populations. Our aim is two-fold: first, since in many countries the antiviral stockpile is well below this level, we search for suboptimal strategies based on treatment provided only to an age-dependent fraction of cases. Second, since in some countries the stockpile exceeds the suggested minimum level, we search for optimal strategies for post-exposure prophylactic treatment of close contacts of cases.

Methods

We used a stochastic, spatially structured individual-based model, considering explicit transmission in households, schools and workplaces, to simulate the spatiotemporal spread of an influenza pandemic in Italy and to evaluate the efficacy of interventions based on age-prioritized use of antivirals.

Results

Our results show that the antiviral stockpile required for treatment of cases ranges from 10% to 35% of the population for R₀ in 1.4 – 3. No suboptimal strategies, based on treatment provided to an age-dependent fraction of cases, were found able to remarkably reduce both clinical attack rate and antiviral drugs needs, though they can contribute to largely reduce the excess mortality. Treatment of all cases coupled with prophylaxis provided to younger individuals is the only intervention resulting in a significant reduction of the clinical attack rate and requiring a relatively small stockpile of antivirals.

Conclusion

Our results strongly suggest that governments stockpile sufficient influenza antiviral drugs to treat approximately 25% of their populations, under the assumption that R₀ is not much larger than 2. In countries where the number of antiviral stockpiled exceeds the suggested minimum level, providing prophylaxis to younger individuals is an option that could be taken into account in preparedness plans. In countries where the number of antivirals stockpiled is well below 25% of the population, priority should be decided based on age-specific case fatality rates. However, late detection of cases (administration of antivirals 48 hours after the clinical onset of symptoms) dramatically affects the efficacy of both treatment and prophylaxis.