Studies on the antiviral activity of amantadine hydrochloride

Fighting the flu: a brief review on anti-influenza agents

The influenza virus causes one of the most prevalent and lethal infectious viral diseases of the respiratory system; the disease progression varies from acute self-limiting mild fever to disease chronicity and death. Although both the preventive and treatment measures have been vital in protecting humans against seasonal epidemics or sporadic pandemics, there are several challenges to curb the influenza virus such as limited or poor cross-protection against circulating virus strains, moderate protection in immune-compromised patients, and rapid emergence of resistance. Currently, there are four US-FDA-approved anti-influenza drugs to treat flu infection, viz. Rapivab, Relenza, Tamiflu, and Xofluza. These drugs are classified based on their mode of action against the viral replication cycle with the first three being Neuraminidase inhibitors, and the fourth one targeting the viral polymerase. The emergence of the drug-resistant strains of influenza, however, underscores the need for continuous innovation towards development and discovery of new anti-influenza agents with enhanced antiviral effects, greater safety, and improved tolerability. Here in this review, we highlighted commercially available antiviral agents besides those that are at different stages of development including under clinical trials, with a brief account of their antiviral mechanisms.

Using Zebrafish Models of Human Influenza A Virus Infections to Screen Antiviral Drugs and Characterize Host Immune Cell Responses

Each year, seasonal influenza outbreaks profoundly affect societies worldwide. In spite of global efforts, influenza remains an intractable healthcare burden. The principle strategy to curtail infections is yearly vaccination. In individuals who have contracted influenza, antiviral drugs can mitigate symptoms. There is a clear and unmet need to develop alternative strategies to combat influenza. Several animal models have been created to model host-influenza interactions. Here, protocols for generating zebrafish models for systemic and localized human influenza A virus (IAV) infection are described. Using a systemic IAV infection model, small molecules with potential antiviral activity can be screened. As a proof-of-principle, a protocol that demonstrates the efficacy of the antiviral drug Zanamivir in IAV-infected zebrafish is described. It shows how disease phenotypes can be quantified to score the relative efficacy of potential antivirals in IAV-infected zebrafish. In recent years, there has been increased appreciation for the critical role neutrophils play in the human host response to influenza infection. The zebrafish has proven to be an indispensable model for the study of neutrophil biology, with direct impacts on human medicine. A protocol to generate a localized IAV infection in the Tg(mpx:mCherry) zebrafish line to study neutrophil biology in the context of a localized viral infection is described. Neutrophil recruitment to localized infection sites provides an additional quantifiable phenotype for assessing experimental manipulations that may have therapeutic applications. Both zebrafish protocols described faithfully recapitulate aspects of human IAV infection. The zebrafish model possesses numerous inherent advantages, including high fecundity, optical clarity, amenability to drug screening, and availability of transgenic lines, including those in which immune cells such as neutrophils are labeled with fluorescent proteins. The protocols detailed here exploit these advantages and have the potential to reveal critical insights into host-IAV interactions that may ultimately translate into the clinic.

Modeling human influenza infection in the laboratory

Influenza is the leading cause of death from an infectious cause. Because of its clinical importance, many investigators use animal models to understand the biologic mechanisms of influenza A virus replication, the immune response to the virus, and the efficacy of novel therapies. This review will focus on the biosafety, biosecurity, and ethical concerns that must be considered in pursuing influenza research, in addition to focusing on the two animal models - mice and ferrets - most frequently used by researchers as models of human influenza infection.

Animal Models for Influenza Virus Pathogenesis and Transmission

Influenza virus infection of humans results in a respiratory disease that ranges in severity from sub-clinical infection to primary viral pneumonia that can result in death. The clinical effects of infection vary with the exposure history, age and immune status of the host, and also the virulence of the influenza strain. In humans, the virus is transmitted through either aerosol or contact-based transfer of infectious respiratory secretions. As is evidenced by most zoonotic influenza virus infections, not all strains that can infect humans are able to transmit from person-to-person. Animal models of influenza are essential to research efforts aimed at understanding the viral and host factors that contribute to the disease and transmission outcomes of influenza virus infection in humans. These models furthermore allow the pre-clinical testing of antiviral drugs and vaccines aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality in the population through amelioration of the virulence or transmissibility of influenza viruses. Mice, ferrets, guinea pigs, cotton rats, hamsters and macaques have all been used to study influenza viruses and therapeutics targeting them. Each model presents unique advantages and disadvantages, which will be discussed herein.

Antiviral Resistance in Influenza Viruses: Clinical and Epidemiological Aspects

Two classes of anti-viral agents, the M2 ion channel inhibitors (amantadine, rimantadine) and neuraminidase (NA) inhibitors (oseltamivir, zanamivir) are available for treatment and prevention of infl uenza in most countries of the world. The principle concerns about emergence of antiviral resistance in infl uenza viruses are loss of drug effi cacy, transmission of resistant variants, and possible increased virulence or transmissibility of resistant variants (1). Because seasonal infl uenza is usually an acute, self-limited illness in which viral clearance occurs rapidly due to innate and adaptive host immune responses, the emergence of drug-resistant variants would be anticipated to have modest effects on clinical recovery, except perhaps in immunocompromised or immunologically naïve hosts, such as young infants or during the appearance of a novel strain. In contrast to the limited impact of resistance emergence in the treated immunocompetent individual, the epidemiologic impact of resistance emergence and transmission could be considerable, including loss of both prophylactic and therapeutic activity for a particular drug, at the household, community, or perhaps global level. Infl uenza epidemiology in temperate climates is expected to provide some protection against widespread circulation of resistant variants, as viruses do not persist between epidemics but rather are re-introduced each season and new variants appear often (2, 3).

Antiviral Drugs for the Control of Pandemic Influenza Virus

In the advent of an influenza virus pandemic it is likely that the administration of antiviral drugs will be an important first line of defence against the virus. The drugs currently in use are effective against seasonal influenza virus infection, and some cases have been used in the treatment of patients infected with the avian H5N1 influenza virus. However, it is becoming clear that the emergence of drug-resistant viruses will potentially be a major problem in the future efforts to control influenza virus infection. In addition, during a new pandemic, sufficient quantities of these agents will need to be distributed to many different parts of the world, possibly at short notice. In this review we provide an overview of some of the drugs that are currently available for the treatment and prevention of influenza virus infection. In addition, basic research on influenza virus is providing a much better understanding of the biology of the virus, which is offering the possibility of new anti-influenza virus drugs. We therefore also review some new antiviral strategies that are being reported in the scientific literature, which may form the basis of the next generation of antiviral strategies during a future influenza virus pandemic. Key words: Antiviral, Amantadine, Pandemic influenza virus, Oseltamivir, siRNA

Antivirals for influenza: historical perspectives and lessons learned

The development of the currently available classes of antivirals, the M2 proton channel inhibitors and the neuraminidase inhibitors, provides valuable perspectives relevant to the field of antiviral chemotherapy in general and insights into aspects of viral pathogenesis and antiviral resistance relevant specifically to influenza. The efficacy observed with these antiviral drugs has proven the importance of these antiviral targets, as well as the principle that chemoprophylaxis and early treatment are possible in influenza infections with small molecular weight inhibitors.

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.

In vitro and in vivo assay systems for study of influenza virus inhibitors

Evaluation of potential influenza virus inhibitors may utilize multiple steps. First would be to determine if the viral target (e.g. influenza virus neuraminidase) being focused upon will be inhibited in the appropriate assay. Standard in vitro antiviral assays, used next in antiviral evaluations, may utilize inhibition of viral plaques, viral cytopathic effect (CPE), and viral hemagglutinin or other protein, with inhibition of viral yield used in follow-up evaluations. The CPE can be determined visually and by dye uptake. Animal models used for study of potential influenza virus inhibitors include the ferret, the laboratory mouse, and the chicken, with a variety of parameters used to indicate the severity of the infection and its inhibition by therapy. Multiple parameters are recommended in any in vivo antiviral evaluation. The ferret and the mouse infection models have been useful in studying the development of drug resistance and the relative virulence of drug-resistant viruses. The influenza mouse model has also been of value for the evaluation of immunomodulating effects of test compounds and for the study of the utility of antiviral drugs for use against influenza virus infections in the immunocompromised host. In considering the use of any animal model, species differences in drug pharmacology and metabolism must be taken into account. This review has described the systems which have been used most frequently by antiviral investigators, using, as examples, recent studies with the clinically approved influenza virus neuraminidase inhibitors oseltamivir and zanamivir.

Influenza

The currently available antiviral drugs rimantadine and amantadine are effective only for influenza A viruses. Another class of influenza antiviral drugs is the neuraminidase inhibitors, which selectively inhibit both influenza A and B viruses. Recent studies have found the neuraminidase inhibitors zanamivir and oseltamivir to be 67-82% effective in preventing laboratory-confirmed infection when administered as prophylaxis during the influenza season. As treatment, they reduce the duration of illness by 1-1.5 days when started within 36-48 h of illness onset. The reported adverse effects of these drugs are minimal, and unlike amantadine and rimantadine, the drugs do not appear to affect the central nervous system. Poor oral bioavailability and rapid renal clearance limit the use of zanamivir to inhalation and concern has been raised about its use in asthmatics. The sialic acid analogue, GS4071, has been shown to be a potent inhibitor of neuraminidase activity and is shown to be effective in controlling influenza, and its prodrug form--GS4104 (oseltamivir) can be given orally. Direct comparison of zanamivir and oseltamivir, their use for prophylaxis and treatment in high-risk groups, and evaluation of their cost effectiveness are all required before they enter routine clinical practice.

Long-term stability of the anti-influenza A compounds--amantadine and rimantadine

Amantadine and rimantadine hydrochloride were tested for stability after storage at different temperatures and under different conditions for extended periods of time. Both compounds were quite stable after storage for at least 25 years at ambient temperature; they both retained full antiviral activity after long-term storage or after boiling and holding at 65-85 degrees C for several days. Thus, amantadine and rimantadine could be synthesized in large quantities and stored for at least one generation without loss of activity in preparation for the next influenza A pandemic in humans.

How to overcome resistance of influenza A viruses against adamantane derivatives

We tested two approaches to overcoming resistance of influenza A viruses against adamantane derivatives. First, adamantane derivatives that interfere with the ion channel function of the variant M2 protein of amantadine-resistant viruses may prevent drug resistance, if they are used in mixture with amantadine. Second, amantadine acts on the M2 protein (at low concentrations) and indirectly on the hemagglutinin (at concentrations at least 100 times higher). Identifying and using a drug that reacted with both targets at the same concentration might reduce development of resistance, since, in this case, two mutations, one in each target protein would be necessary at once. Such a double mutation is assumed to be a rare event. We evaluated forty adamantane derivatives and two related compounds to determine whether they interfered with plaque formation by influenza A strains, including A/Singapore/1/57 (H2N2). Variants resistant to drugs that interfered at low concentrations (approximately 1 microg/ml; e.g. amantadine) were cross-resistant with each other, but were sensitive to those agents effective at high concentrations (8 microg/ml; e.g. memantine). The former group of compounds act on the ion channel; the corresponding escape mutants tested had amino acid replacements at positions 27, 30 or 31 of the M2 protein. Hemagglutinin was the indirect target of the latter group of compounds. Variants resistant to these agents lacked amino acid replacements within the ion channel of the M2 protein and the mutants tested had amino acid replacements in the hemagglutinin. Although we failed to identify compounds that interacted with the ion channel of amantadine-resistant variants and inhibited their replication, we were able to construct at least two compounds that interfered with both the ion channel and the hemagglutinin at about the same concentration. After passage in the presence of these compounds, we either failed to obtain any drug-resistant mutants or those obtained had amino acid replacements in the ion channel of the M2 protein and the hemagglutinin.

Rimantadine: a clinical perspective

OBJECTIVE

To provide a review of rimantadine, including its antiviral activity, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, adverse effects, drug interactions, and dosage and administration. Information on influenza A virus and clinical features of influenza disease are presented. Comparative data on rimantadine and amantadine are described.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE search restricted to English-language literature published from 1966 through 1994 and an extensive review of journals was conducted.

DATA EXTRACTION

The data on antiviral activity, pharmacokinetics, adverse effects, and drug interactions were obtained from various articles on rimantadine in open and controlled studies. Controlled double-blind studies were evaluated to assess the efficacy of rimantadine in prophylaxis and treatment of influenza A infection.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Over 90% of a rimantadine dose was absorbed in 3-6 hours in healthy adults. Steady-state plasma concentrations have ranged from 0.10 to 2.60 micrograms/mL at doses of 3 mg/kg/d in infants to 100 mg twice daily in the elderly. Nasal fluid concentrations of rimantadine at steady-state were 1.5 times higher than plasma concentrations, which may explain the effectiveness of rimantadine despite a low plasma concentration. Over 75% of a rimantadine dose was metabolized in the liver, and the parent compound and metabolites were almost completely eliminated by the kidneys. The elimination half-life ranged from 24.8 to 36.5 hours, which allows once-daily dosing. Dosage adjustment is recommended for patients with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance < or = 0.17 mL/s), severe hepatic dysfunction, or elderly nursing home patients. Drug-resistant strains of influenza A virus to rimantadine occurred in several studies with children and/or adults. Clinical significance of drug-resistant strains has not been established. Rimantadine appeared to be effective in 85-90% of individuals for prevention of influenza A illness and in 50-65% for prevention of influenza A infection. Rimantadine reduced the time to a 50% reduction in symptoms by 1-3 days versus placebo. Differences in symptom reduction between rimantadine and placebo after the first 3 days of treatment was not generally clinically significant. The most common adverse effects of rimantadine administration were associated with the central nervous system (CNS) and the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. CNS-related adverse effects occurred in 3.2% of children younger than 10 years of age and 8.4% of adults. In elderly patients, the incidence of CNS-related adverse effects ranged from 4.9% at 100 mg/d to 12.5% at 200 mg/d. GI adverse effects occurred in 8.4% of children younger than 10 years of age, 3.1% of adults, and 2.9% at 100 mg/d and 17.0% at 200 mg/d in the elderly.

CONCLUSIONS

Rimantadine offers some desirable features for the treatment and prophylaxis of influenza A infection. It appears to be an attractive choice in elderly patients with a history of CNS adverse effects from amantadine and in patients with mild or moderate renal impairment. Although approved for twice-daily dosing, rimantadine has a pharmacokinetic profile that would allow once-daily dosing. It is effective for prophylaxis (not postexposure prophylaxis) and treatment of influenza A virus. It also has a low incidence of adverse effects.

Efficacy of rimantadine hydrochloride in the treatment of influenza infection of mice

Rimantadine HCl was assessed for its effect on influenza A virus titer in lungs of infected BALB/c mice. Rimantadine administered orally via drinking water, with and without an intraperitoneal prophylactic loading dose, was compared to intraperitoneal administration. Mice were infected with a non-lethal dose of influenza A/Port Chalmers/H3N2 virus and the pulmonary virus titers were determined at intervals over a 21 day period. Prophylactic treatment with rimantadine followed by oral administration resulted in up to a 4 log10 reduction in pulmonary virus titer. The oral doses given to the mice were comparable on a mg/kg/day basis to those recommended for treatment of human infections. Reductions in pulmonary virus titers also occurred after intraperitoneal rimantadine treatment which included a prophylactic dose, but the reductions in pulmonary virus titers were less striking and not consistent over the course of infection. There were no significant reductions in pulmonary virus titers by either route if treatment was started 8 h after exposure to virus.

RNA virus evolution and the control of viral disease

RNA viruses and other RNA genetic elements must be viewed as organized distributions of sequences termed quasi-species. This means that the viral genome is statistically defined but individually indeterminate. Stable distributions may be maintained for extremely long time periods under conditions of population equilibrium. Perturbation of equilibrium results in rapid distribution shifts. This genomic organization has many implications for viral pathogenesis and disease control. This review has emphasized the problem of selection of viral mutants resistant to antiviral drugs and the current difficulties encountered in the design of novel synthetic vaccines. Possible strategies for antiviral therapy and vaccine development have been discussed.

Antiviral Chemotherapyand Prophylaxis of Viral Respiratory Disease

Several antiviral agents are currently available for the treatment and prophylaxis of viral respiratory disease. These include oral amantadine for influenza A and aerosolized ribavirin for respiratory syncytial virus infections. Additional agents, such as rimantadine and intranasal interferons, and newer approaches, including thе use of combination chemotherapy, offer promise for the improved management of viral respiratory tract infections.

Enhancement of activity against influenza viruses by combinations of antiviral agents

In an investigation of alternative therapeutic approaches for the treatment of influenza virus infections, the antiviral activities of rimantadine hydrochloride, amantadine hydrochloride, ribavirin, and combinations of these drugs were assessed in vitro. Madin-Darby canine kidney cell monolayers were inoculated with recent isolates of influenza viruses at low multiplicities of infection, and virus titers were determined after 24 h. The combination of rimantadine and ribavirin resulted in an enhanced antiviral effect (a decrease in virus titer of > 1.0 log10 plaque-forming unit per ml at 24 h relative to the maximal effect of a single drug) against A/USSR/90/77/H1N1, A/Texas/1/77/H3N2, A/New Jersey/76/HSW1N1, and A/PR/834/H0N1 viruses. The degree of inhibition depended on the virus strain used, the drug concentrations, and the virus inoculum. Amantadine and ribavirin showed enhanced activity. Ribavirin in combination with high (50 micrograms/ml), but not low (1.56 to 25 micrograms/ml), concentrations of rimantadine showed an enhanced antiviral effect against B/Hong Kong/72 virus. An assay of Madin-Darby canine kidney cell proliferation in the presence of drugs showed that the enhanced inhibitory effect of drug combinations was not due to increased cytotoxicity.

Plaque inhibition assay for drug susceptibility testing of influenza viruses

The relative antiviral activities of four drugs against contemporary strains of influenza A and B viruses were determined in Madin-Darby canine kidney cell monolayers with a plaque inhibition assay. This assay proved to be a reliable, rapid method of determining 50% inhibitory concentrations that correlated well with clinically achievable drug levels and the results of clinical trials. Contemporary strains of influenza A viruses (subtypes H1N1, H3N2, HSW1N1) required amantadine hydrochloride and rimantadine hydrochloride 50% inhibitory concentrations in the range of 0.2 to 0.4 microgram/ml, whereas 50% inhibitory concentrations ranged from approximately 50 to 100 micrograms/ml against influenza B viruses. Ribavirin was approximately 10-fold less active than amantadine hydrochloride against influenza A viruses, and the ribavirin 50% inhibitory concentrations against both influenza A and B viruses ranged from 2.6 to 6.8 micrograms/ml. Inosiplex had no antiviral activity in this test system.

Laboratory characteristics of an attenuated influenza type A (H3N2) virus ('Alice' strain)

The Alice strain of live attenuated influenza virus was obtained by selection of a gamma inhibitor-resistant strain from a virus recombinant between A/PR/8/34 (HON1) and A/England/42/72 (H3N2). Its behaviour in vitro and in vivo was studied. Three marker systems were investigated: resistance to serum inhibitors, growth capacity at high temperature and low sensitivity to amantadine hydrochloride. In ferrets the strain was found to be attenuated and immunogenic. Passages in man, animals and eggs have not affected its resistance to gamma inhibitors.

Protection of man from natural infection with influenza A2 Hong Kong virus by amantadine: a controlled field trial

Prophylactic administration of amantadine in doses of 100 mg. twice a day offered statistically significant protection against influenza A2 infection in a double-blind field trial involving 391 medical student volunteers during the influenza A2 Hong Kong epidemic in Helsinki in the winter of 1969. Serologically verified influenza, as measured by complement fixation and/or haemagglutination inhibition, occurred in 27 out of 192 students in the amantadine group against 57 out of 199 in the placebo group, giving a protection rate of 52%.

Rubella virus carrier cultures derived from congenitally infected infants

Spontaneous rubella carrier cultures derived from tissues of infants with congenital rubella were studied in an attempt to elucidate a possible mechanism for viral persistence observed in these infants. Chronically infected cells were found to have a reduced growth rate and the cultures appeared to have a shortened life span. The rubella carrier state was not dependent on serum inhibitors or rubella antibodies. Virtually every cell in the carrier population was found to be producing virus. The carrier cultures could not be cured by rubella antibodies. The rubella-infected cells were resistant to superinfection with vesicular stomatitis virus and herpes simplex virus but were susceptible to infection with echovirus 11. The replication of vesicular stomatitis virus was apparently blocked at an intracellular site, for the virus readily adsorbed to the chronically infected cells and entered into an eclipse phase; however no infectious virus developed. No evidence of interferon production by these cells could be obtained. It is postulated that clones of rubella-infected cells in vivo, with properties similar to those in carrier cultures developed in vitro from tissues of in utero infected infants, might explain the observed viral persistence noted in congenital rubella.