Metabolic profiling to evaluate the impact of amantadine and rimantadine on the secondary metabolism of a model organism

Metabolic profiling offers huge potential to highlight markers and mechanisms in support of toxicology and pathology investigations during drug development. The main objective was to modify therapy with adamantane derivatives: amantadine and rimantadine, to increase their bioavailability and evaluate the influence of such therapy on drug metabolism using Saccharomyces cerevisiae as the model organism. In this study, the profile of endogenous metabolites of a model organism was measured and interpreted to provide an opportunity to investigate changes induced by treatment with amantadine and rimantadine. It was found that resveratrol supplementation synergistically enhanced the effects of amantadine treatment and increased rimantadine metabolism, potentially reducing side effects. The fingerprinting strategy was used as an efficient technique for qualitatively evaluating and monitoring changes in the profiles of endogenous components and their contents in a model organism. Chemometric tools were employed to find marker compounds that can be defined as characteristic indicators of a pharmacological response to a therapeutic intervention. An improved understanding of the mechanisms involved in drug effect and an increased ability to predict individual variations in the drug response of organisms will improve the treatment process and the development of new therapies.

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.

Amantadine and rimantadine for influenza A in children and the elderly

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness and safety of amantadine (AMT) and rimantadine (RMT) for preventing and treating influenza A in adults has been systematically reviewed. However, little is known about these treatments in children and the elderly.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of AMT and RMT in preventing and treating influenza A in children and the elderly.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to June week 3, 2011) and EMBASE (1980 to June 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing AMT and/or RMT with placebo, control, other antivirals or different doses or schedules of AMT or RMT, or both, or no intervention, in children and the elderly.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and assessed methodological quality. We resolved disagreements by consensus. In all comparisons except for one, we separately analysed the trials in children and the elderly using Review Manager software.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 12 studies involving 2494 participants (1586 children and adolescents and 908 elderly) compared AMT and RMT with placebo, paracetamol (one trial; 69 children) or zanamivir (two trials; 545 seniors). All studies were RCTs but most were still susceptible to bias. Two trials in the elderly had a high risk of bias because of incomplete outcome data. In one of those trials there was also a lack of outcome assessment blinding. Risk of bias was unclear in 10 studies due to unclear random sequence generation and allocation concealment. Only two trials in children were considered to have a low risk of bias.AMT was effective in preventing influenza A in children. A total of 773 participants were included in this outcome (risk ratio (RR) 0.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.30). The assumed risk of influenza in the control group was 10 per 100 and the corresponding risk in the RMT group was one per 100 (95% CI 0 to 3). The quality of the evidence was considered low. For treatment purposes, RMT was beneficial for abating fever on day three of treatment. For this purpose one study was selected with low risk of bias and included 69 children (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.91). The assumed risk was 38 per 100 and the corresponding risk in the RMT group was 14 per 100, 95% CI 5 to 34. The quality of the evidence was moderate.RMT did not show a prophylactic effect against influenza in the elderly, but the quality of evidence was considered very low. There were 103 participants (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.14 to 1.41, for an assumed risk of 17 per 100 and a corresponding risk in the RMT group of 7 per 100, 95% CI 2 to 23). We did not identify any AMT trials in the elderly that met our inclusion criteria.There was no evidence of adverse effects of AMT and RMT in children or an adverse effect of RMT in the elderly. We did not identify any AMT trials in the elderly that met our inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

AMT is effective in preventing influenza A in children but the NNTB is high (NNTB: 12 (95% CI 9 to 17). RMT probably helps the abatement of fever on day three of treatment, but the quality of the evidence is poor. Due to the small number of available studies, we could not reach a definitive conclusion on the safety of AMT or the effectiveness of RMT in preventing influenza in children and the elderly.

Amantadine and rimantadine for influenza A in children and the elderly

BACKGROUND

Although amantadine (AMT) and rimantadine (RMT) are used to relieve or treat influenza A symptoms in healthy adults, little is known about the effectiveness and safety of these antivirals in preventing and treating influenza A in children and the elderly.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to systematically consider evidence on the effectiveness and safety of AMT and RMT in preventing and treating influenza A in children and the elderly.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2007, issue 3); MEDLINE (1966 to July 2007) and EMBASE (1980 to July 2007).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing AMT and/or RMT in children and the elderly with placebo, control, other antivirals or comparing different doses or schedules of AMT and/or RMT or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and assessed methodological quality. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. In all comparisons except for one, the trials in children and in the elderly were analysed separately. Data were analysed and reported using Cochrane Review Manager 4.2. software.

MAIN RESULTS

In children, RMT was effective in the abatement of fever on day three of treatment. AMT showed a prophylactic effect against influenza A infection. AMT and RMT were not related to an increase in the occurrence of adverse effects. RMT also was considered to be well tolerated by the elderly, but showed no prophylactic effect. Different doses were comparable in the prophylaxis of influenza in the elderly, as well as in reporting adverse effects. Zanamivir prevented influenza A more effectively than RMT in the elderly.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

AMT was effective in the prophylaxis of influenza A in children. As confounding matters might have affected our findings, caution should be taken when considering which patients should to be given this prophylactic. Our conclusions about effectiveness of both antivirals for the treatment of influenza A in children were limited to a proven benefit of RMT in the abatement of fever on day three of treatment. Due to the small number of available studies we could not reach a definitive conclusion on the safety of AMT or the effectiveness of RMT in preventing influenza in children and the elderly.

Inhaled zanamivir versus rimantadine for the control of influenza in a highly vaccinated long-term care population

BACKGROUND

Despite vaccination, influenza commonly causes morbidity and mortality in institutional settings. Influenza control with rimantadine and amantadine is limited by emergence and transmission of drug-resistant influenza A variants, ineffectiveness against influenza B, and toxicity. This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of zanamivir versus rimantadine for influenza outbreak control in long-term care facilities.

METHODS

This double-blind, randomized, controlled study prospectively enrolled nursing home residents for 3 influenza seasons (1997 to 2000). Vaccine was offered to all subjects. Following influenza outbreak declaration, subjects were randomized to inhaled zanamivir 10 mg or standard of care (rimantadine 100 mg for influenza A or placebo for influenza B) once daily for 14 days. The proportion of randomized subjects developing symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed influenza during prophylaxis was the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

Of 482 randomizations (238 zanamivir, 231 rimantadine, 13 placebo), 96% of subjects were elderly or had high-risk conditions; over 90% were vaccinated. Symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed influenza occurred in 3% of zanamivir subjects and 8% of rimantadine subjects during chemoprophylaxis (P = .038; additional protective efficacy for zanamivir over rimantadine = 61%). Since only 25 subjects were randomized during 2 influenza B outbreaks and none developed influenza, the influenza B data were excluded from further analysis. Zanamivir was well tolerated and unassociated with emergence of resistant virus; rimantadine-resistant variants were common.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first prospective, controlled study demonstrating effectiveness of chemoprophylaxis for influenza outbreak control. Zanamivir prevents symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed influenza more effectively than rimantadine, is unassociated with resistant virus, and has a favorable safety profile. Zanamivir is an appropriate alternative for influenza outbreak control among institutionalized vaccinated elderly.

American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Infectious Diseases. Antiviral therapy and prophylaxis for influenza in children

Antiviral agents are available that are safe and effective for the treatment and prophylaxis of influenza virus infections in children. The neuraminidase inhibitors (oseltamivir [Tamiflu] and zanamivir [Relenza]) are preferred agents because of current widespread resistance to the adamantanes (amantadine [Symmetrel] and rimantadine [Flumadine]). Therapy should be provided to children with influenza infection who are at high risk of severe infection and to children with moderate-to-severe influenza infection who may benefit from a decrease in the duration of symptoms. Prophylaxis should be provided (1) to high-risk children who have not yet received immunization and during the 2 weeks after immunization, (2) to unimmunized family members and health care professionals with close contact with high-risk unimmunized children or infants who are younger than 6 months, and (3) for control of influenza outbreaks in unimmunized staff and children in an institutional setting. Testing of current H5N1 avian influenza virus isolates, the potential agents of pandemic influenza, suggests susceptibility to oseltamivir and zanamivir. Because no prospective data exist on the efficacy of these agents in humans for H5N1 strains, the dosage and duration of therapy in adults and children may differ from those documented to be effective for epidemic influenza strains.

Drug-induced linear immunoglobulin A bullous dermatosis mimicking Stevens-Johnson syndrome: a case report

Linear immunoglobulin A (IgA) bullous dermatosis (LABD) is a rare autoimmune disorder characterized by vesiculobullous mucocutaneous eruptions. LABD also has been reported as a drug-induced reaction. Idiopathic LABD and drug-induced LABD are clinically indistinguishable and can resemble bullous pemphigoid, dermatitis herpetiformis, or bullous erythema multiforme. LABD is diagnosed with direct immunofluorescence (DIF), and idiopathic LABD can be distinguished from drug-induced LABD with a careful medication history. We present the case of a 54-year-old man with drug-induced LABD after ingestion of rimantadine, zanamivir, and azithromycin for presumed influenza. The patient's bullous eruption resolved with discontinuation of the offending medications and treatment with prednisone and pentoxifylline.

Amantadine and rimantadine for influenza A in adults

BACKGROUND

Amantadine hydrochloride and rimantadine hydrochloride have antiviral properties, but they are not widely used due to a lack of knowledge of their potential value and concerns about possible adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the efficacy, effectiveness and safety ("effects") of amantadine and rimantadine in healthy adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (2003 to August Week 4, 2005), EMBASE (October 2003 to July 2005) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised studies comparing amantadine and/or rimantadine with placebo, control medication or no intervention, or comparing doses or schedules of amantadine and/or rimantadine in healthy adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For prophylaxis (prevention) trials the numbers of participants with clinical influenza (influenza-like-illness or ILI) or with confirmed influenza A and adverse effects were analysed. Analysis for treatment trials was of the mean duration of fever, length of hospital stay and adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS

Amantadine prevented 25% of ILI cases (95% confidence interval (CI) 13% to 36%), and 61% of influenza A cases (95% CI 35% to 76%). Amantadine reduced duration of fever by one day (95% CI 0.7 to 1.2). Rimantadine demonstrated comparable effectiveness, but there were fewer trials and the results for prophylaxis were not statistically significant. Both amantadine and rimantadine induced significant gastrointestinal adverse effects. Adverse effects of the central nervous system and study withdrawals were significantly more common with amantadine than rimantadine. Neither drug affected the rate of viral shedding from the nose and the course of asymptomatic influenza.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Amantadine and rimantadine have comparable efficacy and effectiveness in relieving or treating symptoms of influenza A in healthy adults, although rimantadine induces fewer adverse effects than amantadine. The effectiveness of both drugs in interrupting transmission is probably low. Routine use of both drugs should be discouraged and both drugs should only be used when all other measures fail.

Neuraminidase inhibitors in patients with underlying airways disease

Influenza virus infection accounts for significant morbidity, mortality, and healthcare expenditures among persons worldwide. Approximately 20,000 to 40,000 people in the US die each year as a result of influenza. Individuals most susceptible to adverse outcomes include the elderly and those with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart disease, renal failure, malignancy, or immunosuppression. Prior to the AIDS epidemic, underlying respiratory disease was the greatest risk factor for influenza-related hospitalization ranking third to heart disease and malignancy for risk of mortality. Although the influenza vaccine can help prevent pneumonia and hospitalization, it is limited by less than ideal immunization rates and the possibility of viral antigenic shifts that render the vaccine ineffective. Pharmacologic interventions play an important role in the management of influenza virus infection by shortening the duration of symptoms. The advent of the neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) zanamivir and oseltamivir has significantly affected the treatment of influenza. Unlike NAIs, the older therapeutic options amantadine and rimantadine may cause significant central nervous system adverse effects. In addition, amantadine and rimantadine are not active against influenza B viruses, whereas NAIs are active against both influenza A and B. Post-marketing surveillance of the NAIs has revealed that bronchospasm may occur in patients with underlying respiratory disease treated with the NAI zanamivir. Recent data suggest zanamivir is effective in patients with underlying respiratory disease, but the data are insufficient to elucidate the true risk of bronchospasm. Based on post-marketing reports, zanamivir should be used with caution in patients with asthma or COPD. Although oseltamivir has not been associated with any significant respiratory adverse effects, no data exist on the safety and efficacy of this NAI in patients with underlying respiratory disease.

Safety and efficacy of nebulized zanamivir in hospitalized patients with serious influenza

Influenza is an important cause of hospitalization due to lower respiratory tract involvement for which there is no specific antiviral treatment with proven efficacy. We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to assess the tolerability and efficacy of nebulized zanamivir (16 mg four times a day) in combination with rimantadine compared to rimantadine with nebulized saline for treating influenza in adults hospitalized with influenza. Twenty patients tolerated the inhaled zanamivir (ZNV) plus rimantadine without decline in peak expiratory flow rates compared to the 21 who received inhaled saline. The study was terminated early because the approval of ZNV made further enrollment untenable. No significant differences were observed in the proportion of patients shedding virus by treatment day 3 (57% ZNV plus rimantadine, 67% placebo plus rimantadine), or in the durations of hospitalization and supplemental oxygen use. More ZNV plus rimantadine recipients exhibited no or mild cough on day 3 of treatment (94 vs 55%, P=0.01). Two rimantadine-resistant viruses emerged during rimantadine monotherapy; no ZNV resistance was observed. Nebulized ZNV appears to be well tolerated in this hospitalized population but further studies are needed to assess its efficacy.

Antivirals for influenza: what is their role in the older patient?

Influenza infection is a cause of high morbidity and mortality in the elderly living in the community or in long-term care facilities. Yearly immunisation is the most important means for prevention of infection. However, protection by vaccination in the elderly is incomplete, and influenza infections and outbreaks in long-term care facilities still occur. Symptoms of influenza include fever, chills, headache, myalgia and respiratory symptoms. These clinical features overlap considerably with other co-circulating respiratory viruses such as respiratory syncytial virus and parainfluenza virus. Elderly and debilitated patients with influenza may present with less prominent respiratory symptoms and may present only with fever, lassitude and confusion. Antiviral prophylaxis and treatment with amantadine and rimantadine have been given in the past but adverse effects and early development of drug resistance have limited their use. The newer antivirals zanamivir and oseltamivir are equally effective and have the advantage of being well tolerated and active against both influenza A and B without the development of resistance. However, they are costly. Early identification and diagnosis of influenza illnesses are crucial since treatment with antiviral agents should be started within 48 hours of the beginning of illness.

Economic analysis of influenza vaccination and antiviral treatment for healthy working adults

BACKGROUND

Physicians have several treatment options for influenza, including vaccination and various antiviral therapies. However, the optimal influenza prevention and treatment strategy is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the relative health values of contemporary treatment strategies for influenza in a healthy sample of working adults.

DESIGN

Cost-benefit analysis using a decision model.

DATA SOURCES

Previously published data.

TARGET POPULATION

Healthy employed adults 18 to 50 years of age.

TIME HORIZON

A complete influenza season.

PERSPECTIVE

Societal.

INTERVENTIONS

Eight treatment options (yes or no) based on the possible combinations of vaccination and antiviral therapy (rimantadine, oseltamivir, or zanamivir or no treatment) should infection develop.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Cost in U.S. dollars, including the value of symptom relief and medication side effects, which was assigned a monetary value through a conjoint analysis that used a "willingness-to-pay" approach.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, all strategies for influenza vaccination had a higher net benefit than the nonvaccination strategies. Vaccination and use of rimantadine, the most cost-beneficial strategy, was $30.97 more cost-beneficial than nonvaccination and no use of antiviral medication. The health benefits of most antiviral treatments equaled or exceeded their costs for most scenarios. The choice of the most cost-beneficial antiviral strategy was sensitive to the prevalence of influenza B and to the comparative workdays gained by each antiviral therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccination is cost-beneficial in most influenza seasons in healthy working adults. Although the benefits of antiviral therapy for persons with influenza infection appear to justify its cost, head-to-head trials of the various antiviral therapies are needed to determine the optimal treatment strategy.

Comparison of central nervous system adverse effects of amantadine and rimantadine used as sequential prophylaxis of influenza A in elderly nursing home patients

BACKGROUND

Amantadine hydrochloride and rimantadine hydrochloride are recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for prophylaxis of influenza A. While data suggest that rimantadine is better tolerated, there are no data examining the rate of adverse reactions in elderly patients who receive amantadine vs rimantadine. Our objective was to assess the adverse reaction rate in elderly nursing home patients receiving sequential amantadine and rimantadine for influenza A prophylaxis.

METHODS

Data were collected in 156 nursing home patients (70% women; mean+/-SD age, 83.7+/-10.1 years) in a single care setting who received sequential therapy with amantadine and rimantadine during the 1997-1998 influenza season. Patients were assessed for central nervous system adverse effects and therapy discontinuation occurring with each agent.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine (18.6%) of the 156 patients experienced an adverse effect when receiving amantadine compared with 3 patients (1.9%) when rimantadine was given (P<.01). Drug use was discontinued due to adverse events in 17.3% (n = 27) of the amantadine courses and 1.9% (n=3) of the rimantadine courses (P<.001). Confusion was the most frequently observed adverse event (amantadine, 10.6%; rimantadine, 0.6%; P<.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that significant risk factors for central nervous system adverse events included male sex (odds ratio, 3.65), reduced calculated creatinine clearance (odds ratio, 1.78), and use of amantadine (odds ratio, 12.73).

CONCLUSIONS

Amantadine use was associated with a significantly higher incidence of central nervous system adverse events than rimantadine use in this elderly population receiving influenza prophylaxis. In addition, the discontinuation rate of amantadine was significantly higher than that with rimantadine.

Prevention and early treatment of influenza in healthy adults

INTRODUCTION

We present three systematic reviews carried out within the Cochrane Collaboration, focusing on a different influenza intervention in healthy adults: Vaccines; Ion Channel Inhibitor antivirals and Neuraminidase Inhibitor (NIs) antivirals. The objectives were to identify, retrieve and assess all studies evaluating the effects of these interventions in prophylaxis and early treatments of influenza and the frequency of adverse events. Additionally we present the results of the economic evaluation of effective alternatives in order to define the most cost-effective intervention. The economic evaluation is set in the context of the British Army.

METHODS

Studies were identified using a standard Cochrane search strategy. Any randomised or quasi-randomised studies in healthy individuals aged 14-60 years were considered for inclusion in the systematic review. Those which met inclusion criteria were assessed for quality and their data meta-analysed. The economic model was constructed using Cost-effectiveness and Cost-utility study designs.

RESULTS

Live aerosol vaccines reduced cases of clinical influenza A with virological confirmation (by serology and/or viral isolation) by 48% (95%CI: 24-64%), whilst recommended inactivated parenteral vaccines have an efficacy of 68% (95%CI: 49-79%). Vaccine effectiveness in reducing clinical influenza cases (i.e. without virological confirmation) was lower, with efficacies of 13 and 24% respectively. Use of the vaccine significantly reduced time off work, but only by 0.4 days (95%CI: 0. 1-0.8 days). Analysis of vaccines matching the circulating strain gave higher estimates of efficacy, whilst inclusion of all other vaccines reduced the efficacy. When compared to placebo for the prevention of influenza, oral amantadine was 61% (95%CI: 51-69%) efficacious (RR 0.39 - 95%CI: 0.31-0.49), and oral rimantadine was 64% (95%CI: 41-78%) efficacious (RR 0.36 -95%CI: 0.22-0.59). When compared to placebo for the treatment of influenza, oral amantadine significantly shortened duration of fever (by 1.00 days - 95%CI: 0. 73-1.29), and oral rimantadine significantly shortened duration of fever (by 1.27 days - 95%CI: 0.77-1.77). When compared to placebo, NIs were 74% (95%CIs: 50-87%) effective in preventing naturally occurring cases of clinically defined influenza. In a treatment role, NIs shortened the duration of symptoms by one day (Weighted Mean Difference - 1.0; 95%CIs: -1.3 to - 0.6) when a clinical case definition is used. The economic results show that in healthy adults, inactivated vaccines appear the best buy.

CONCLUSIONS

If assessed from the point of view of effectiveness and efficiency, vaccines are undoubtedly the best preventive means for clinical influenza in healthy adults. However, when safety and quality of life considerations are included, parenteral vaccines have such low effectiveness and high incidence of trivial local adverse effects that the trade-off is unfavourable. This is so even when the incidence of influenza is high and adverse effect quality of life preferences are rated low. We reached similar conclusions for antivirals and NIs even at high influenza incidence levels. On current evidence we conclude in healthy adults aged 14-60 the most cost-effective option is not to take any action.

A pilot study of rimantadine for patients with chronic hepatitis C unresponsive to interferon therapy

OBJECTIVE

Therapeutic options are limited for chronic hepatitis C patients who have not responded to a course of interferon therapy. Recently, a 6-month course of amantadine was shown to result in a sustained virological response in chronic hepatitis C patients who were unresponsive to interferon therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of rimantadine on chronic hepatitis C patients who had not responded to interferon therapy.

METHODS

This was an open label trial involving 17 patients who were treated with rimantadine 100 mg b.i.d. for 6 months. Changes in serum aminotransferase activities and HCV-RNA levels were determined.

RESULTS

Mean alanine aminotransferase activities and HCV RNA levels did not change significantly during therapy. HCV RNA remained detectable in all patients throughout therapy. Neurologic symptoms (headaches, nervousness, and dizziness) developed in 29% of patients. A total of 12% of patients required dose reduction after 12 wk of therapy because of dizziness.

CONCLUSION

Rimantadine has no significant antiviral activity against HCV.

Measures for control of influenza

Influenza viruses cause recurring illnesses among individuals and recurring epidemics among populations. The major effective control measure for preventing infection and illness is inactivated vaccine, which can prevent influenza illnesses and their complications when given before exposure to the virus. While inactivated vaccine is effective for preventing influenza in most individuals, recommendations for its use focus on the prevention of severe disease and death among those who are at high risk of complications. Live attenuated cold-adapted influenza vaccines are nearing availability. They are given by nasal spray and are particularly effective for preventing influenza among young children, but also for preventing influenza among young adults, and enhancing protection against influenza when given with inactivated vaccine to elderly persons. The antiviral agents amantadine and rimantadine are related compounds that are effective for the prevention and treatment of influenza A virus infections and illnesses. Disadvantages are the rapid development of resistance during treatment and CNS adverse effects with amantadine. These drugs are also effective for outbreak control. Ribavirin is an antiviral given by small particle aerosol that is approved for the treatment of respiratory syncytial virus disease; it is also effective for the treatment of influenza. Two new antiviral agents inhibit influenza viral neuraminidase activity; one is given by inhalation or intranasally (zanamivir) and the other orally (GS4104). The former is free of adverse effects, while the latter induces nausea and vomiting in some individuals. Both are effective for the prevention as well as the treatment of influenza A and B illnesses. Thus, various measures for preventing and treating influenza are nearing availability. Their optimal use should further improve the control of influenza in individuals and populations as well as permit efforts to prevent community epidemics.

A pilot study on the motor effects of rimantadine in Parkinson's disease

The purpose of this pilot study was to determine whether rimantadine, the alpha-methyl derivative of amantadine, might have any antiparkinsonian properties. In an open-label trial, 14 patients (12 de novo and 2 on levodopa treatment) with Hoehn and Yahr stage 2 to 3 Parkinson's disease were placed on rimantadine at doses of 100 to 300 mg/d. No patients had dyskinesias or motor fluctuations. Ten of 14 (71%) reported a mean subjective response of 33% (range 10%-60%) to rimantadine. After treatment, there was a 13% improvement in Hoehn and Yahr staging (p = .01) and a 20% improvement in mean motor Unified Parkinsons Disease Rating Scale scores (p = .02). Rigidity was the most consistently improved feature among the responders. Mean effective dose was 256 mg/d (range 200-300 mg/d). Side effects were mild and transient, with nausea being most common (4/14). We conclude that rimantadine has some motor benefits in Parkinson's disease. A double-blind placebo-controlled study is warranted to validate our findings.

Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

These recommendations update information concerning the vaccine and antiviral agents available for controlling influenza during the 1998-99 influenza season (superseding MMWR 1997;46[No. RR-9:1-25]). The principal changes include a) information about the influenza virus strains included in the trivalent vaccine for 1998-99, b) more detailed information about influenza-associated rates of hospitalization, and c) updated information on the possible relationship between Guillain-Barre syndrome and influenza vaccination.

Prevention and control of influenza: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

These recommendations update information on the vaccine and antiviral agents available for controlling influenza during the 1996-97 influenza season (superseding MMWR 1995;44(No. RR-3):1-22). The principal changes include information about a) the influenza virus strains included in the trivalent vaccine for 1996-97 and b) extension of the optimal time for influenza vaccination campaigns for persons in high-risk groups.

Safety and efficacy of long-term use of rimantadine for prophylaxis of type A influenza in nursing homes

The safety and efficacy of rimantadine for long-term prophylaxis of influenza A (H3N2) infection were evaluated among elderly residents in 10 nursing homes. Within each nursing home, participating residents were randomly assigned to receive placebo or rimantadine at 100 or 200 mg/day. Residents were evaluated daily for symptoms and significant health events as possible side effects, as well as for influenza-like illness. The study medications were administered to 328 residents for up to 8 weeks, with no statistically significant differences in the frequencies of gastrointestinal or central nervous system symptoms between the groups. However, residents in the active medication groups were more likely to withdraw from the study and to experience various health events including death; some but not all of these differences were statistically significant. Efficacy evaluations were carried out on the 68 vaccinated residents in the two nursing homes with demonstrated influenza virus activity. Rimantadine appeared to provide an additional protective effect beyond vaccination in reducing the risk of clinical and laboratory-confirmed influenza-like illness; however, the efficacy estimates were never statistically significant. The efficacies of the 100- and 200-mg/day dosages were generally similar. When data for the 100- and 200-mg/day dosage groups were combined and compared with data for the group receiving placebo, the efficacy of rimantadine in reducing the risk of clinical influenza-like illness was estimated to be 58 percent (P = 0.079). The results suggest the relative safety and clinical efficacy of using rimantadine for influenza prophylaxis among vaccinated elderly individuals and support the recommendation for a dosage reduction to 100 mg/day in this population.

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.

Amantadine and rimantadine prophylaxis of influenza A in nursing homes. A tolerability perspective

Amantadine and rimantadine are recommended for the treatment and prophylaxis of influenza A infections, and constitute an integral component of influenza control measures in the nursing home setting. However, optimal use necessitates a thorough understanding of the toxicity profiles of these agents, as well as strategies to reduce the risk of adverse reactions. Adverse reactions of these compounds predominantly involve the gastrointestinal tract and the central nervous system (CNS), including hyperexcitability, slurred speech, tremors, insomnia, dizziness, mood disturbance, ataxia, psychosis and fatigue. Based on data from comparative trials, rimantadine appears to exhibit a lesser propensity to cause adverse CNS reactions than amantadine, but a similar propensity to cause adverse gastrointestinal reactions. Factors enhancing the risk of adverse reactions to these agents include reduced renal function (especially for amantadine), drug-drug interactions with cationic drugs, which inhibit amantadine renal tubular secretion (e.g. trimethoprim, triamterene, and possibly cimetidine and procainamide), elevated peak and trough plasma concentrations, and a history of seizures. Careful attention to published dosage adjustment guidelines for these compounds, avoidance of interacting drugs and avoiding these agents in patients with a history of seizures may be the best means to reduce the risk of toxicity in elderly patients. Rimantadine may have an advantage over amantadine in the elderly population in light of its lesser propensity to cause adverse reactions, less complex dosage adjustment in the case of renal impairment and probable lack of drug-drug interaction potential with cationic drugs.

Adverse effects and drug interactions of clinical importance with antiviral drugs

Most antiviral drugs are nucleoside analogues with potential teratogenic, embryotoxic, carcinogenic and antiproliferative activities. They must be administered with caution during pregnancy, because some are known teratogens (e.g. amantadine) and a similar propensity cannot be entirely excluded for others (e.g. aciclovir). Their adverse effects mostly involve bone marrow depression (e.g. granulocytopenia with ganciclovir, anaemia with zidovudine) or neurotoxicity (e.g. seizures with interferon-alpha, peripheral neuropathy with zalcitabine), although gastrointestinal effects are also seen. Idiosyncratic reactions include didanosine-induced acute pancreatitis. Only inosine pranobex is largely free from toxicity. Idoxuridine must be administered topically, given the severity of its systemic adverse effects. Drug interactions involving antiviral agents mostly reflect shared toxicity with other agents (e.g. neutropenia with ganciclovir and zidovudine, pancreatitis with didanosine and alcohol), although renal excretion or hepatic metabolism may be implicated. Given the possibility of severe adverse reactions and drug interactions, antiviral chemotherapy should only be used for potentially serious virus infections. Topical administration avoids systemic adverse effects but not mutagenic risks, and may result in exposure of individuals other than the patient (e.g. aerosolised ribavirin).

[Amantadine and rimantadine against influenza A]

Amantadine and the analogue rimantadine have an antiviral effect on influenza A virus and are approximately 60% effective in preventing illness. The drugs are administered orally, and peak plasma concentration is achieved at two hours after a single dose. Side effects occur in 5-20% of the cases, but generally mild and transient and seen mainly with doses of more than 200 mg a day. This paper describes the mechanism of action and the pharmacokinetics of the drugs, and refers to some important clinical trials. Amantadine has been used in Norway to treat Parkinson's disease since 1972. The licensing of the amantadine and rimantadine for use against influenza A in this country is also discussed.

Antivirals for the chemoprophylaxis and treatment of influenza

Influenza virus infections are one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Several antiviral agents, amantadine, rimantadine, and ribavirin, have been shown to be either therapeutically or prophylactically effective in influenza virus infections. Amantadine and rimantadine are effective, via the oral route, in treating and preventing influenza A infections. Aerosolized preparations of amantadine and rimantadine have also shown therapeutic efficacy against influenza A. Oral ribavirin has slight therapeutic efficacy in influenza A, but has also shown promising results in therapy of influenza B infections. Aerosolized ribavirin has also shown promise in treatment of patients who are severely ill with influenza A and B.

Effect of rimantadine on the immune response to influenza A infections

The effects of rimantadine on lymphocyte responses to mitogens CON-A and PHA, natural killer cell activity, and the development of serum and local antibodies were studied during an epidemic outbreak of influenza A (H3N2). Twenty-three families consisting of 38 adults and 46 children had a member who developed a flu-like illness and were randomly assigned to receive placebo or rimantadine either as treatment or post exposure prophylaxis. Nasal washings for virus isolation and IgG and IgA determination were collected on days 1, 5, and 10 of illness. Blood samples for immunologic studies were obtained on days 1 and 5 of clinical illness and on day 21. No differences in lymphocyte responses to CON-A and PHA or in natural-killer cell activity were noted between placebo and rimantadine groups. The development of neutralizing antibodies to influenza H3N2 was also not affected by rimantadine. However, the presence of IgA in nasal secretions was significantly diminished in the rimantadine group compared to the placebo group (0/9 vs. 6/9, P less than 0.005). The findings indicate that rimantadine had no adverse affect on the systemic immune system. However, local immune response was diminished in individuals taking rimantadine possibly due to the presence of less immunogen resulting from reduction of virus in secretions of individuals taking antivirals.

Safety and pharmacokinetics of rimantadine small-particle aerosol

The safety and pharmacokinetics of rimantadine administered by small-particle aerosol were assessed in healthy adults and adults with acute influenza virus infection. Aerosolized rimantadine delivered at a concentration of 40 micrograms/liter of air was associated with nasal burning and irritation in normal volunteers. A concentration of 20 micrograms/liter of air was well tolerated for up to 12 h by normal volunteers and was not associated with any changes in pulmonary function, as measured by routine spirometry, plethysmography, or diffusion capacity of carbon monoxide. Mean peak levels of drug in serum were approximately 10-fold lower after 12 h of aerosol administration than they were after oral administration of 200 mg (29.7 versus 255 ng/ml, respectively), while mean nasal wash levels were approximately 100-fold higher (6,650 versus 66.6 ng/ml, respectively). Elimination half-lives were similar after both aerosol and oral administration (24.1 and 25.2 h, respectively), and rimantadine urinary excretion was less than 1% per 24 h in both groups. Twenty micrograms of aerosolized rimantadine per liter of air given 12 h daily for 3 days to nine adults with acute influenza virus infection was well tolerated. Levels in plasma after 12 h of aerosol inhalation were similar to those in normal volunteers, but were higher at the end of the third treatment than they were at the end of the first treatment (88.3 versus 47.9 ng/ml, respectively). Thus, rimantadine delivered via small-particle aerosol at a dose of 20 micrograms/liter of air was well tolerated in normal volunteers and in those with acute influenza and was associated with high local concentrations.

Safety and prophylactic efficacy of low-dose rimantadine in adults during an influenza A epidemic

A placebo-controlled, double-blind study to evaluate the safety and prophylactic efficacy of a low dose (100 mg) of rimantadine hydrochloride against naturally occurring influenza in adults was conducted at two sites. After the onset of the influenza season, volunteers (ages, 18 to 55 years) were assigned randomly to receive rimantadine or placebo daily. Subjects were monitored for adverse effects and evidence of influenza virus infection weekly for six weeks. Only 10 (8.7%) of 114 rimantadine recipients and 5 (4.4%) of 114 placebo control recipients reported one or more mild to moderate adverse symptoms, most of which were related to the gastrointestinal or central nervous system. Compared with placebo, low-dose rimantadine was highly effective in the prevention of influenza A virus infection (20 of 110 versus 7 of 112 participants; P less than 0.01) and influenza illness (7 of 110 versus 1 of 112 participants; P = 0.04). Influenza A/Leningrad/87-like (H3N2) virus was recovered from the nasopharynxes of only five placebo recipients. These findings indicate that low-dose rimantadine is well tolerated and highly effective for the prevention of influenza A illness in healthy adults.

[Prevention of influenza A. Effectiveness and tolerance of rimantadine hydrochloride]

The prophylactic effectiveness of rimantadine hydrochloride (RH) during an outbreak of influenza A was evaluated in a double-blind study versus placebo (P). After identification of 111 homes with one affected member, 301 household contacts were enrolled and given either RH (151 contacts from 56 households) or a placebo (150 contacts from 55 households). Each treatment was given for ten days. Overall, at least one contact developed influenza in 8 of the 56 RH group households and 19 of the 55 placebo group households (p = 0.013). Numbers of contacts who developed influenza were 8/151 in the RH group and 26/150 in the placebo group. When only the 49 homes where influenza was confirmed by virological studies were considered, these numbers were 4/28 in the RH group and 10/21 in the placebo group (p = 0.011). Adverse effects were seen in 18 of the 151 subjects given RH (11.9 per cent) and 6 of the 150 subjects given the placebo (4 per cent). RH appeared as an effective prophylactic agent in a confirmed influenza A outbreak and was satisfactorily tolerated.

Amantadine and rimantadine for the prevention of influenza A

Influenza is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States, particularly among persons with cardiac and/or pulmonary disease and those over age 65. Vaccine is effective but not completely protective. Prophylaxis with one of the antivirals, amantadine or rimantadine, has proven efficacy against influenza A virus infections. It should be considered for high-risk patients both in the community and in health care facilities where these subjects are concentrated. Prophylaxis also has potential benefit in the home when an index case of acute influenza has been identified. The dose of drug that is most appropriate is under study. Based on observations made in young patients, it is hoped that rimantadine will be better tolerated by the elderly than has been the case with amantadine. Assessment of efficacy in outbreaks caused by viruses of different antigenic make up and elevation of the significance of drug resistance will be important in judging the true value of prophylaxis of influenza with either of these antivirals.

Multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of rimantadine in elderly adults

To assess the possible effect of aging on rimantadine hydrochloride pharmacokinetics, single- and multiple-dose kinetics were determined in 18 healthy adults with ages between 51 and 79 years. Subjects ingested single 100-mg oral doses of rimantadine after an overnight fast, followed after 5 days by a dosage of 100 mg twice a day for 9.5 days. No differences were observed among the age-stratified groups in measured or derived pharmacokinetic parameters. Peak concentrations in plasma (mean +/- standard deviation) following the single- and multiple-dose regimens, respectively, were 89 +/- 25 and 417 +/- 129 ng/ml for subjects who were 50 to 60 years of age (group 1), 92 +/- 24 and 401 +/- 84 ng/ml for those 61 to 70 years of age (group 2), and 100 +/- 14 and 538 +/- 51 for those 71 to 79 years of age (group 3). The elimination half-life in plasma following multiple doses averaged 33.5 h for group 1, 32.5 h for group 2, and 38.6 h for group 3. Steady-state concentrations in nasal mucus developed by day 5 of dosing (1.5-fold higher than concentrations in plasma), and rimantadine remained detectable in secretions for 5 days after the last dose in 65% of subjects. Stepwise regression analysis suggested that changes in maximum concentration in plasma and area under the concentration-time curve at steady state may be related to creatinine clearance. The results indicate that no important differences in rimantadine multiple-dose pharmacokinetics exist among healthy elderly adults with ages between 51 and 79 years.

[Rimantadine in the prevention and treatment of influenza A]

Although the antiviral properties of rimantadine specifically directed against influenza A viruses have been known for more than 25 years, this compound has not been widely used owing to its narrow specificity. The drug is active and has low toxicity. It should play a major role in the fight against the medical, epidemiological and economic effects of influenza A, but it can only be used under a number of conditions: accurate identification of the circulating virus and early administration of the drug (these two prerequisites being somewhat contradictory), selection of the right targets (contacts of recognized cases, subjects constantly exposed to contagion, etc.) and respect of certain contraindication. On the other hand, the theoretical advantages of this type of prophylaxis are important: it may limit contagion (morbidity) or at least reduce the severity of the cases (mortality); it may also prevent an epidemic from penetrating the population treated and thus reduce the severity and costs of the epidemic. The therapeutic use of rimantadine has not yet been officially recommended, but it already seems very promising. Rimantadine should be used as an adjuvant treatment, side by side with immunization against influenza which it cannot replace.

Antiviral drugs for common respiratory diseases. What's here, what's to come

Progress is being made in the development of drugs for the prevention and treatment of viral respiratory infections. Two drugs currently available to clinicians are amantadine (Symmetral) and ribavirin (Virazole). Oral amantadine is effective for both treatment and prevention of uncomplicated influenza A infections. Although vaccination continues as the mainstay of influenza prevention, amantadine is useful for unvaccinated patients if complications are likely. When used for treatment, it must be started within the first 48 hours of illness. Ribavirin appears to be safe for treatment of respiratory syncytial virus infections in nonintubated infants. It must be delivered by aerosol in a hospital setting. Patients at risk for complications should be given the drug as early as possible in the course of the disease. Efficacy has yet to be proven in intubated patients, but the drug is probably safe to use with proper supervision. On the horizon are rimantadine and the interferons. Rimantadine is similar to amantadine in its action and indications for use and has a lower incidence of side effects. The interferons have not been the hoped-for panacea for viral respiratory infections but may be useful in a nasal spray for the prevention of colds caused by rhinovirus.

Effectiveness of rimantadine prophylaxis of children within families

With recent studies suggesting that children are the main introducers of influenza infections into families, we conducted a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized trial to study the prophylactic effectiveness of rimantadine hydrochloride in children on the transmission of influenza A infections within families. One hundred forty-five volunteers from 35 families completed this study during a naturally occurring outbreak of influenza A (H1N1) infection. Influenza infections, defined as a positive viral throat culture or a fourfold increase in antibody titer, occurred in 31.7% of children in the placebo group and 2.9% of children in the rimantadine group. Clinical illness with laboratory evidence of influenza infection occurred in 17.0% of children in the placebo group and 0% of children in the rimantadine group. Rimantadine was well tolerated by the children, with no significant difference in reported side effects between the placebo and rimantadine groups. Influenza A infection occurred in 19.0% of adults whose children were receiving a placebo and 8.8% of adults whose children were receiving rimantadine. On the basis of our study, rimantadine prophylaxis of children appears to be an effective method to prevent influenza A infection in children. Additional studies are needed to demonstrate the effects of rimantadine prophylaxis of children on the incidence of influenza A infection in their parents.

Serum concentrations and safety of rimantadine in paediatric patients

Rimantadine has been shown to be more active in vitro and less toxic than amantadine in adults with influenza A disease. Because of a lack of studies in pediatric patients, we designed a study to evaluate serum concentrations and adverse effects of rimantadine in infants receiving repeated doses. Fourteen hospitalized infants (ages 1-10 months) were given rimantadine syrup at 3 mg/kg/dose in single daily doses during influenza season. Blood samples were obtained prior to dose and at various intervals up to 8 h after doses on the fifth to ninth days of therapy. Adverse effects were assessed based on clinical status, activity level, hematologic and biochemical parameters during 10-day therapy. Steady-state rimantadine peak serum concentration ranged from 100 to 574 ng/ml and time to achieve peak concentration ranged from 2.5 to 6.0 h after the doses. No adverse effects were seen except hematuria in one infant; this patient had the highest rimantadine concentration and longest treatment duration. Hematuria resolved during a follow-up evaluation on the ninth day after stopping therapy. Our data suggest that rimantadine can be given safely at repeated doses of 3 mg/kg/dose in a convenient once-daily regimen; the steady-state peak serum concentrations and time to achieve peak concentration may vary substantially in infants receiving same oral doses; and possible association of adverse effects and high serum concentration or long treatment duration of rimantadine needs further evaluation in small infants.

Clinical applications of antiviral agents for chemophrophylaxis and therapy of respiratory viral infections

Table III summarizes clinical applications of antiviral agents in respiratory viral infections. (table: see text) For influenza A virus infections, both oral amantadine and rimantadine are effective when used for seasonal prophylaxis and for prophylaxis in institutional populations. Both of these drugs, as well as aerosolized ribavirin, have antiviral and therapeutic effects in uncomplicated influenza. It remains to be determined whether any of these modalities or possibly their combined use [44] will be useful in treating severe influenza hospitalized patients or whether they can prevent the development of complications in high risk patients. Unfortunately, there is no parenteral formulation of amantadine or rimantadine for use in critically ill patients. Aerosolized ribavirin has also been shown to have modest therapeutic effects in influenza B virus infection. However, a major need exists for an antiviral which is active against influenza B virus and which can be used on an outpatient basis. Controlled clinical trials have shown that aerosolized ribavirin therapy improves arterial oxygenation and modifies the severity of respiratory syncytial virus bronchiolitis and pneumonia [3,5]. Its role in treating life-threatening disease or in modifying the long-term sequelae of RSV infections are unknown at the present time. Again, a specific antiviral agent is needed for outpatient use in preventing or treating RSV infections. Finally, after over a decade of work since the original observation that intranasal interferon could prevent experimental rhinovirus infection [11], recent studies have established that intranasal rIFN-a2 is effective in the postexposure prophylaxis of rhinovirus colds in families [42]. This strategy needs to be studied with regard to the prevention of infection and its complications in high risk patients and it remains to be determined whether intranasal interferon will have therapeutic activity in established colds.

Safety of prolonged administration of rimantadine hydrochloride in the prophylaxis of influenza A virus infections in nursing homes

We evaluated the safety of rimantadine hydrochloride (RH) prophylaxis in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in three nursing homes during a community epidemic of influenza A (H3N2). Although daily monitoring of the 35 participants revealed an association between RH administration (100 mg twice a day) and the development of nausea and anxiety (P less than 0.05), these and other potential side effects were transient and were rarely considered to be clinically significant. Serum RH levels measured at the end of the trial (mean, 1,159 ng/ml) were nearly three times higher than those measured previously in younger individuals, suggesting that lower dosages may be indicated for the elderly.

Differences in side effects of amantadine hydrochloride and rimantadine hydrochloride relate to differences in pharmacokinetics

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled study, the comparative toxicities and blood concentrations of amantadine hydrochloride and rimantadine hydrochloride were determined. Healthy, working adults ingested either 200 (n = 52) or 300 mg (n = 196) per day in divided doses for 4.5 days. Mean plasma drug concentrations at 4 h after the first dose were lower in rimantadine recipients given 100- (140 versus 300 ng/ml for rimantadine and amantadine, respectively; P less than 10(-5)) or 200-mg doses (310 versus 633 ng/ml; P less than 10(-5)). The plasma drug concentrations after the first dose correlated significantly with total symptom sources for both amantadine and rimantadine, but the plasma levels of toxic and nontoxic subjects overlapped extensively. At 300-mg/day dosage amantadine was associated more often with adverse central nervous system symptoms (33% of amantadine versus 9% of rimantadine recipients; P less than 0.001) and sleep disturbance (39 versus 13%; P less than 0.001), but not gastrointestinal symptoms (19.5 versus 16.0%). However, no differences between the drugs were noted in symptom frequency or scores in volunteers with similar plasma concentrations. Amantadine and rimantadine differ in their pharmacokinetics but not in their potential for side effects at comparable plasma concentrations.