Amantadine in treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus infection?

Drug generations that combat influenza A virus infection

Influenza viruses are significant human respiratory pathogens that cause infections and unpredictable pandemic outbreaks. M2 ion-channel protein, participating in the transmission of viral genetic materials into infected cells, is considered to be the crucial target for old-generation drugs such as rimantadine and amantadine. Neuraminidase protein, which is responsible for the replication of the influenza virus, is affected by the new generation of drugs, including oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza). The virus mutations that cause oseltamivir resistance are also described. This review presents the details concerning the treatment of influenza neuraminidase inhibitors against the H5N1 strain. It also describes virus mutations that cause resistance to oseltamivir and presents a new drug, peramivir, which is a neuraminidase inhibitor that was introduced against the H1N1 epidemic. This work specifies the details of the pharmacokinetics, dosing, toxicity, side effects, and efficiency of the drugs being used against influenza A virus infections.

Docking assay of small molecule antivirals to p7 of HCV

Protein p7 of HCV is a 63 amino acid channel forming membrane protein essential for the progression of viral infection. With this momentousness, p7 emerges as an important target for antiviral therapy. A series of small molecule drugs, such as amantadine, rimantadine, amiloride, hexamethylene amiloride, NN-DNJ and BIT225 have been found to affect the channel activity. These compounds are docked against monomeric and hexameric structures of p7 taken at various time steps from a molecular dynamics simulation of the protein embedded in a hydrated lipid bilayer. The energetics of binding identifies the guanidine based ligands as the most potent ligands. The adamantanes and NN-DNJ show weaker binding energies. The lowest energy poses are those at the site of the loop region for the monomer and hexamer. For the latter, the poses show a tendency of the ligand to face the lumen of the pore. The mode of binding is that of a balance between hydrophobic interactions and hydrogen bond formation with backbone atoms of the protein.

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.

Protective role of amantadine in mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress mediated by hepatitis C virus protein expression

Amantadine is an antiviral and antiparkinsonian drug that has been evaluated in combination therapies against hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Controversial results have been reported concerning its efficacy, and its mechanism of action remains unclear. Data obtained in vitro suggested a role of amantadine in inhibiting HCV p7-mediated cation conductance. In keeping with the fact that mitochondria are responsible to ionic fluxes and that HCV infection impairs mitochondrial function, we investigated a potential role of amantadine in modulating mitochondrial function. Using a well-characterized inducible cell line expressing the full-length HCV polyprotein, we found that amantadine not only prevented but also rescued HCV protein-mediated mitochondrial dysfunction. Specifically, amantadine corrected (i) overload of mitochondrial Ca²⁺; (ii) inhibition of respiratory chain activity and oxidative phosphorylation; (iii) reduction of membrane potential; and (iv) overproduction of reactive oxygen species. The effects of amantadine were observed within 15 min following drug administration and confirmed in Huh-7.5 cells transfected with an infectious HCV genome. These effects were also observed in cells expressing subgenomic HCV constructs, indicating that they are not mediated or only in part mediated by p7. Single organelle analyzes carried out on isolated mouse liver mitochondria demonstrated that amantadine induces hyperpolarization of the membrane potential. Moreover, amantadine treatment increased the calcium threshold required to trigger mitochondrial permeability transition opening. In conclusion, these results support a role of amantadine in preserving cellular bioenergetics and redox homeostasis in HCV-infected cells and unveil an effect of the drug which might be exploited for a broader therapeutic utilization.

Viral channel-forming proteins

Channel-forming proteins are found in a number of viral genomes. In some cases, their role in the viral life cycle is well understood, in some cases it needs still to be elucidated. A common theme is that their mode of action involves a change of electrochemical or proton gradient across the lipid membrane which modulates the viral or cellular activity. Blocking these proteins can be a suitable therapeutic strategy as for some viruses this may be "lethal." Besides the many biological relevant questions still to be answered, there are also many open questions concerning the biophysical side as well as structural information and the mechanism of function on a molecular level. The immanent biophysical issues are addressed and the work in the field is summarized.

Amantadine for fatigue in multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Fatigue is one of the most common and disabling symptoms of people with Multiple Sclerosis (MS). The effective management of fatigue has an important impact on the patient's functioning, abilities, and quality of life. Although a number of strategies have been devised for reducing fatigue, treatment recommendations are based on a limited amount of scientific evidence. Many textbooks report amantadine as a first-choice drug for MS-related fatigue because of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) showing some benefit.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of amantadine in treating fatigue in people with MS.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane MS Group Trials Register (July 2006), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2006), MEDLINE (January 1966 to July 2006), EMBASE (January 1974 to July 2006), bibliographies of relevant articles and handsearched relevant journals. We also contacted drug companies and researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, placebo or other drugs-controlled, double-blind trials of amantadine in MS people with fatigue.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three reviewers selected studies for inclusion in the review and they extracted the data reported in the original articles. We requested missing and unclear data by correspondence with the trial's principal investigator. A meta-analysis was not performed due to the inadequacy of available data and heterogeneity of outcome measures.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 13 pertinent publications, 5 trials met the criteria for inclusion in this review: one study was a parallel arms study, and 4 were crossover trials. The number of randomised participants ranged between 10 and 115, and a total of 272 MS patients were studied. Overall the quality of the studies considered was poor and all trials were open to bias. All studies reported small and inconsistent improvements in fatigue, whereas the clinical relevance of these findings and the impact on patient's functioning and health related quality of life remained undetermined. The number of participants reporting side effects during amantadine therapy ranged from 10% to 57%.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of amantadine in reducing fatigue in people with MS is poorly documented, as well as its tolerability. It is advisable to: (1) improve knowledge on the underlying mechanisms of MS-related fatigue; (2) achieve anagreement on accurate, reliable and responsive outcome measures of fatigue; (3) perform good quality RCTs.

Histamine dihydrochloride: actions and efficacy in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C infection

The host immune response, in addition to viral factors, is the critical determinant of the pathological consequences of hepatitis C virus infection. Current therapies for genotype 1 are unsuccessful in a substantial number of patients. Histamine dihydrochloride by virtue of its histamine H2 agonistic activity, has the potential to prevent damage induced by oxidative stress in tissues and can protect T and natural killer lymphocytes from oxygen radical-induced functional inhibition and apoptosis, thereby, potentiating interferon-alpha-induced activation of these cells. Coadministration of histamine dihydrochloride and interferon therapy for chronic hepatitis C virus infection was tested in several clinical trials. However, conflicting data and the relatively small numbers of patients enrolled, suggest that this combination should be the focus of further investigation.

Amantadine triple therapy for non-responder hepatitis C patients. Clues for controversies (ANRS HC 03 BITRI)

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To determine whether addition of amantadine to pegylated interferon/ribavirin improved response rates among chronic hepatitis C patients, non-responders to interferon/ribavirin and study the dynamic of response.

METHODS

In a double blind, multicenter, randomized trial, 200 non-responder patients received pegylated interferon 1.5 microg/kg per week and ribavirin 800-1200 mg/day, plus either amantadine 200 mg/day or placebo for 48 weeks. Endpoints were virological responses, ALT normalization, and histological benefit overtime.

RESULTS

Twenty percent of all patients achieved a sustained virological response (SVR). This rate was 8% higher in the triple therapy group (24%) compared with the double therapy group (16%) (P = 0.22). A better virological response rate at week 24 was observed in the triple regimen group (43 vs 29%; P = 0.06), which was lost at week 48 suggesting viral escape. The biochemical response rate was also significantly higher with triple therapy at week 12 (63 vs 49%; P = 0.05) and week 24 (64 vs 49%; P = 0.03). Fibrosis stabilized or improved in 77% of all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Re-treatment of interferon/ribavirin non-responder patients should be encouraged since a substantial proportion benefits from re-treatment with pegylated interferon/ribavirin +/- amantadine. In triple therapy involving amantadine, a time wise response and an increased SVR rate in subgroups less prone to viral breakthrough suggest clues for existing controversies.