Search

Emergence of resistance is a major concern in influenza antiviral treatment and prophylaxis. Combination antiviral therapy might overcome this problem. Here, we estimate that all possible single mutants and a sizeable fraction of double mutants are generated during an uncomplicated influenza infection. While most of them may sustain a fitness cost, some variants may confer drug resistance and be selected during therapy. We argue that a triple combination regimen would markedly reduce the risk of antiviral resistance emergence in seasonal and pandemic influenza viruses, especially in seriously ill or immunocompromised hosts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We report acute encephalopathy associated with influenza A infection in 3 adults. We detected high cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma concentrations of CXCL8/IL-8 and CCL2/MCP-1 (CSF/plasma ratios > or =3), and interleukin-6, CXCL10/IP-10, but no evidence of viral neuroinvasion. Patients recovered without sequelae. Hyperactivated cytokine response may play a role in pathogenesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The availability of immunogenic, licensed H5N1 vaccines and the anticipated development of vaccines against "swine" influenza A(H1N1) have stimulated debate about the possible use of these vaccines for protection of those exposed to potential pandemic influenza viruses and for immunization or "priming" of populations in the so-called "prepandemic" (interpandemic) era. However, the safety of such vaccines is a critical issue in policy development for wide-scale application of vaccines in the interpandemic period. For example, wide-scale interpandemic use of H5N1 vaccines could lead to millions of persons receiving vaccines of uncertain efficacy potentially associated with rare severe adverse events and against a virus that may not cause a pandemic. Here, we first review aspects of the 1976 National Influenza Immunization Programme against "swine flu" and its well-documented association with Guillain-Barré syndrome as a case study illustration of a suspected vaccine-associated severe adverse event in a mass interpandemic immunization setting. This case study is especially timely, given the recent spread of a novel influenza A(H1N1) virus in humans in Mexico and beyond. Following this, we examine available safety data from clinical trials of H5N1 vaccines and briefly discuss how vaccine safety could be monitored in a postmarketing surveillance setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) has been recognized recently as an important adult pathogen.Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was designed to compare humoral responses to licensed trivalent influenza vaccine given concomitantly with 1 of 2 RSV vaccine formulations in persons > or =65 years old with cardiopulmonary disease. Hemagglutinin-inhibition assays and neutralization assays were used to measure levels of antibody to influenza and RSV, respectively. Subjects with respiratory illnesses during subsequent winters were tested for RSV and influenza by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction and serologic analysis.Results: Neither RSV vaccine formulation had an effect on the humoral response to influenza vaccination, and both RSV vaccines were well tolerated by 1169 participants. The immunogenicity of the nonadjuvanted vaccine was judged superior on the basis of mean postvaccination neutralizing antibody titers (12.5 vs. 12.1) and the percentage of subjects for whom > or =4-fold increases in neutralizing titer were observed when acute-phase and convalescent-phase serum samples were compared (168 [44%] of 383 vs. 129 [33%] of 400). In year 1, the percentage of illnesses due to RSV was 7% (36 of 492 illnesses) and that due to influenza was 8% (40 of 492), compared with 6% (11 of 189) due to RSV and 11% (20 of 189) due to influenza in year 2. The incidence of RSV infection was not significantly different in the RSV vaccine and placebo groups.Conclusions: Although the safety and immunogenicity data of these RSV vaccines are encouraging, low rates of infection make it challenging to design efficacy trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: A high priority in vaccine research is the development of influenza vaccines that do not use embryonated eggs as the substrate for vaccine production.Objective: To determine the dose-related safety, immunogenicity, and protective efficacy of an experimental trivalent influenza virus hemagglutinin (rHA0) vaccine produced in insect cells using recombinant baculoviruses.Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial at 3 US academic medical centers during the 2004-2005 influenza season among 460 healthy adults without high-risk indications for influenza vaccine.Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive a single injection of saline placebo (n = 154); 75 microg of an rHA0 vaccine containing 15 microg of hemagglutinin from influenza A/New Caledonia/20/99(H1N1) and influenza B/Jiangsu/10/03 virus and 45 microg of hemagglutinin from influenza A/Wyoming/3/03(H3N2) virus (n = 153); or 135 microg of rHA0 containing 45 microg of hemagglutinin each from all 3 components (n = 153). Serum samples were taken before and 30 days following immunization.Main Outcome Measures: Primary safety end points were the rates and severity of solicited and unsolicited adverse events. Primary immunogenicity end points were the rates of 4-fold or greater increases in serum hemagglutinin inhibition antibody to each of the 3 vaccine strains before and 28 days after inoculation. The prespecified primary efficacy end point was culture-documented influenza illness, defined as development of influenza-like illness associated with influenza virus on a nasopharyngeal swab.Results: Rates of local and systemic adverse effects were low, and the rates of systemic adverse effects were not different in either vaccine group than in the placebo group. Hemagglutinin inhibition antibody responses to the H1 component were seen in 3% of placebo, 51% of 75-microg vaccine, and 67% of 135-microg vaccine recipients, while responses to B were seen in 4% of placebo, 65% of 75-microg vaccine, and 92% of 135-microg vaccine recipients. Responses to the H3 component occurred in 11% of placebo, 81% of 75-microg vaccine, and 77% of 135-microg vaccine recipients. Influenza infections in the study population were due to influenza B and A(H3N2), and influenza A infections were A/California/7/2004-like viruses, an antigenically drifted strain. Seven cases of culture-confirmed CDC-defined influenza-like illness occurred in 153 placebo recipients (4.6%) compared with 2 cases (1.3%) in 150 recipients of 75 microg of vaccine, and 0 cases in recipients of 135 microg of vaccine.Conclusions: In this study, a trivalent rHA0 vaccine was safe and immunogenic in a healthy adult population. Preliminary evidence of protection against a drifted influenza A(H3N2) virus was obtained, but the sample size was small. Inclusion of a neuraminidase component did not appear to be required for protection.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00328107. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Four household-based, randomized clinical trials, two each of zanamivir and oseltamivir, were designed primarily to estimate the effect of postexposure prophylaxis on preventing influenza illness in household contacts. However, the effect of influenza antivirals on infectiousness as well as on the ability of the virus to cause disease--the pathogenicity--have important public health consequences. The authors show how such studies can provide estimates of pathogenicity, antiviral efficacy for pathogenicity, and the antiviral effect on infectiousness. Analysis of the four studies confirmed the high prophylactic efficacy against illness of both zanamivir (75%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 54, 86) and oseltamivir (81%, 95% CI: 35, 94). The effect on reducing infectiousness was 19% (95% CI: -160, 75) for zanamivir and 80% (95% CI: 43, 93) for oseltamivir. Pathogenicity in controls ranged from 44% (95% CI: 33, 55) to 66% (95% CI: 48, 72). Efficacy in reducing pathogenicity for zanamivir was 52% (95% CI: 19, 72) and 56% (95% CI: 14, 77) in the two studies; for oseltamivir, it was 56% (95% CI: 10, 73) and 79% (95% CI: 45, 92). Studies of influenza antivirals in transmission units would be improved if randomization schemes were used that allow estimation of the antiviral effect on infectiousness from individual studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Staphylococcus aureus is among the most important pathogens in today's hospital setting. Methods. The effects of sneezing on the airborne dispersal of S. aureus and other bacteria were assessed in 11 healthy nasal S. aureus carriers with experimentally induced rhinovirus colds. Airborne dispersal was studied by volumetric air sampling in 2 chamber sessions with and without histamine-induced sneezing. After 2 days of preexposure measurements, volunteers were inoculated with a rhinovirus and monitored for 14 days. Daily quantitative nasal- and skin-culture samples for bacteria and nasal-culture samples for rhinovirus were obtained, cold symptoms were assessed, and volunteer activities were recorded during sessions. Results. All participants developed a cold. Sneezing caused a 4.7-fold increase in the airborne dispersal of S. aureus, a 1.4-fold increase in coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS), and a 3.9-fold increase in other bacteria (P<.001). An additional 2.83 colony forming units (cfu) of S. aureus/m(3)/min, 3.24 cfu of CoNS/m(3)/min, and 474.61 cfu of other bacteria/m(3)/min were released per sneeze. Rhinovirus exposure did not change the frequency of sneezing or airborne dispersal. Having respiratory allergies increased the spread of S. aureus by 3.8-fold during sneezing sessions (P<.001). Conclusion. Nasal S. aureus carriers disperse a significant amount of S. aureus into the air by sneezing. Experimental colds do not alter bacterial dispersal, but respiratory allergies multiply the effect of dispersing S. aureus. Copyright © 2006 Infectious Diseases Society of America [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, convened a panel to develop recommendations for treatment, prevention, and research for respiratory failure from severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and other newly emerging infections. The clinical and pathological features of acute lung injury (ALI) from SARS appear indistinguishable from ALI from other causes. The mainstay of treatments for ALI remains supportive. Patients with ALI from SARS who require mechanical ventilation should receive a lung protective, low tidal volume strategy. Adjuvant treatments recommended include prevention of venous thromboembolism, stress ulcer prophylaxis, and semirecumbent positioning during ventilation. Based on previous experience in Canada, infection control resources and protocols were recommended. Leadership structure, communication, training, and morale are an essential aspect of SARS management. A multicenter, placebo-controlled trial of corticosteroids for late SARS is justified because of widespread clinical use and uncertainties about relative risks and benefits. Studies of combined pathophysiologic endpoints were recommended, with mortality as a secondary endpoint. The group recommended preparation for studies, including protocols, ethical considerations, Web-based registries, and data entry systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Previous studies have shown oseltamivir, a neuraminidase inhibitor, to be effective in preventing influenza and treating experimental influenza.Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oseltamivir in the treatment of naturally acquired influenza infection.Design: Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study conducted January through March 1998.Setting: Sixty primary care and university health centers throughout the United States.Participants: A total of 629 healthy nonimmunized adults aged 18 to 65 years with febrile respiratory illness of no more than 36 hours' duration with temperature of 38 degrees C or more plus at least 1 respiratory symptom and 1 constitutional symptom.Interventions: Individuals were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups with identical appearing pills: oral oseltamivir phosphate, 75 mg twice daily (n = 211) or 150 mg (n = 209) twice daily, or placebo (n = 209).Main Outcome Measures: Duration and severity of illness in individuals infected with influenza.Results: Two individuals withdrew before receiving medication and were excluded from further analyses. A total of 374 individuals (59.6%) were infected with influenza. Their duration of illness was reduced by more than 30% with both oseltamivir, 75 mg twice daily (median, 71.5 hours; P < .001), and oseltamivir, 150 mg twice daily (median, 69.9 hours; P = .006), compared with placebo (median, 103.3 hours). Severity of illness was reduced by 38% (median score, 597 score-hours; P < .001) with oseltamivir, 75 mg twice daily, and by 35% (median score, 626 score-hours; P < .001) with oseltamivir, 150 mg twice daily, vs placebo (median score, 963 score-hours). Oseltamivir treatment reduced the duration of fever and oseltamivir recipients returned to usual activities 2 to 3 days earlier than placebo recipients (P < or = .05). Secondary complications such as bronchitis and sinusitis occurred in 15% of placebo recipients compared with 7% of combined oseltamivir recipients (P = .03). Among all 629 subjects, oseltamivir reduced illness duration (76.3 hours and 74.3 hours for 75 mg and 150 mg, respectively, vs 97.0 hours for placebo; P = .004 for both comparisons) and illness severity (686 score-hours and 629 score-hours for 75 mg and 150 mg, respectively, vs 887 score-hours for placebo; P < .001 for both comparisons). Nausea and vomiting occurred more frequently in both oseltamivir groups (combined, 18.0% and 14.1%, respectively; P = .002) than in the placebo group (7.4% and 3.4%; P < .001).Conclusions: Our data suggest that oral oseltamivir treatment reduces the duration and severity of acute influenza in healthy adults and may decrease the incidence of secondary complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Attachment of most rhinovirus subtypes to cells depends on a cellular receptor, the intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1). A recombinant soluble ICAM-1 (tremacamra, formerly BIRR 4) has shown possible efficacy in early studies.Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of intranasal administration of tremacamra in experimental rhinovirus colds in humans.Design: Four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials conducted in January to March 1996.Setting and Subjects: Volunteers between the ages of 18 and 60 years who had an antibody titer of 1:4 or less to the challenge virus. Subjects were isolated in a hotel room during study days 0 to 8; symptoms were recorded through day 14. A total of 198 subjects were randomized, of whom 196 received drug or placebo and were included in the safety analysis. A total of 177 subjects were included in the efficacy analysis.Interventions: Tremacamra or placebo was given beginning 7 hours before inoculation with rhinovirus type 39 (preinoculation studies) or 12 hours after (postinoculation studies). Tremacamra as an inhaled solution or as a powder (each given preinoculation and postinoculation for a total of 4 studies) and placebo were given in 6 doses at 3-hour intervals daily during days 1 through 7. Recipients of active treatment received 367 microg of tremacamra per nostril per dose for a total of 4.4 mg/d.Main Outcome Measures: Effect of tremacamra on infection, as determined by virus isolation and seroconversion, and on illness, as determined by symptom scores, clinical colds, and nasal mucus weights. Treatment-by-study interaction was not significant, so results were pooled for the main analysis.Results: A total of 88 (92%) of the 96 subjects in the placebo groups and 69 (85%) of the 81 subjects in the active treatment groups were infected (P=.19). For placebo vs tremacamra, respectively, the total symptom score (+/- 95% confidence interval [CI]) was 17.6 (+/- 2.7) vs 9.6 (+/- 2.9), the proportion of clinical colds was 64/96 (67% +/- 9%) vs 36/81 (44% +/- 11%), and the nasal mucus weight was 32.9 (+/- 8.8) g vs 14.5 (+/- 9.4) g (P<.001 for all comparisons). Tremacamra was not associated with adverse effects or evidence of absorption through the nasal mucosa and did not interfere with development of neutralizing antibody.Conclusion: Tremacamra reduced the severity of experimental rhinovirus colds. Whether tremacamra will be useful clinically will require further study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the tolerability and clinical effectiveness of intranasal ipratropium bromide for the treatment of symptoms of common colds.Design: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial.Setting: 3 university student health services.Patients: 411 previously healthy persons 14 to 56 years of age who had cold symptoms that had lasted for no more than 36 hours, rhinorrhea subjectively judged to be of at least moderate severity, and documented nasal discharge of at least 1.5 g over a 1-hour observation period.Intervention: Either 1) ipratropium bromide nasal spray 0.06% in buffered salt solution, two 42-micrograms sprays per nostril administered by metered pump spray; 2) control nasal spray, which consisted of buffered salt solution; or 3) no treatment. Treatments were self-administered three or four times daily during waking hours for 4 days. After receiving their morning dose, patients stayed at the study center for 6 hours on study day 1 and 3 hours on study day 2; symptom severity was recorded and nasal mucus discharges were collected and weighed hourly during these periods.Results: Ipratropium recipients had 26% less nasal discharge than controls (P = 0.0024) and 34% less nasal discharge than untreated patients (P = 0.0001). Severity of rhinorrhea as judged subjectively was reduced in ipratropium recipients by 31% compared with controls and by 78% compared with untreated patients (P = 0.0001 for both comparisons). In addition to being associated with reductions in daily assessments of the severity of rhinorrhea (P < or = 0.003), ipratropium was associated with reduced sneezing on study days 2 (20% difference; P = 0.03) and 4 (30% difference; P = 0.02) but not with reduced nasal congestion compared with the control spray. Ipratropium was generally well tolerated but was associated with higher rates of blood-tinged mucus (16.8% in the ipratropium group compared with 3.6% in the control group; P = 0.01) and nasal dryness (11.7% in the ipratropium group compared with 3.6% in the control group; P = 0.021) than the control spray. Patient assessments of the overall effectiveness of treatment were more favorable for ipratropium than for the control spray (P < or = 0.026) or for no treatment (P < or = 0.002) on each day of inquiry (study days 1, 2, and 5).Conclusions: Intranasal ipratropium bromide provides specific relief of rhinorrhea and sneezing associated with common colds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The pharmacokinetics of oral favipiravir and the relationships of plasma concentrations to antiviral effects are incompletely studied in influenza., Methods: Serial plasma samples were collected from adults with uncomplicated influenza who were randomized to favipiravir (1800 mg twice a day on day 1, 800 mg twice a day on days 2 to 5; n = 827) or placebo (n = 419) in 2 phase 3 trials. Post hoc analyses assessed the frequency of reaching an average minimum concentration (Cmin) ≥20 µg/mL, its association with antiviral efficacy, and factors associated with reduced favipiravir exposure., Results: Wide interindividual variability existed in favipiravir concentrations, and this regimen failed to reach an average Cmin>20 µg/mL in 41%-43% of participants. Those attaining this threshold showed greater reductions in nasopharyngeal infectious virus titers on treatment days 2 and 3 and lower viral titer area under the curve compared to those who did not. Those with average Cmin <20 µg/mL had over 2-fold higher mean ratios of the metabolite T-705M1 to favipiravir, consistent with greater metabolism, and were more likely to weigh >80 kg (61.5%-64%)., Conclusions: Higher favipiravir levels with average Cmin>20 µg/mL were associated with larger antiviral effects and more rapid illness alleviation compared to placebo and to favipiravir recipients with lower average Cmin values in uncomplicated influenza. Clinical Trials Registration . NCT1068912 and NCT01728753., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. F. G. H. has served as nonpaid consultant to Medivector and Fujifilm during the clinical development of favipiravir and to other companies involved in developing favipiravir (Appilli) or influenza therapeutics or vaccines (Arcturus, Gilead, GSK, Janssen/JNJ, MedImmune, Merck, Ridgeback, Roche/Genentech, SAB Biotherapeutics, Shionogi, Via Nova, Versatope, Vir, and Visterra); Cidara, Enanta, Shionogi, and Versatope have made charitable donations for his consulting; and Shionogi and Roche have provided meeting travel support. R. P. L., C. E., and L. L. K. were employees of Medivector at the time of the trials but are no longer employees. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: Influenza A results in significant morbidity and mortality. VIR-2482, an engineered human monoclonal antibody with extended half-life, targets a highly conserved epitope on the stem region of influenza A hemagglutinin, and may protect against seasonal and pandemic influenza., Methods: This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study examined the safety and efficacy of VIR-2482 for seasonal influenza A illness prevention in unvaccinated healthy adults. Participants (N = 2977) were randomized 1:1:1 to receive VIR-2482 450 mg, VIR-2482 1200 mg, or placebo via intramuscular (IM) injection. Primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were the proportions of participants with reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-confirmed influenza A infection and either protocol-defined influenza-like illness (ILI) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-defined ILI or World Health Organization (WHO)-defined ILI, respectively., Results: VIR-2482 450 mg and 1200 mg prophylaxis did not reduce the risk of protocol-defined ILI with RT-PCR-confirmed influenza A versus placebo (relative risk reduction [RRR], 3.8% [95% CI: -67.3, 44.6] and 15.9% [95% CI: -49.3, 52.3], respectively). At the 1200 mg dose, the RRRs in influenza A illness were 57.2% [95% CI: -2.5, 82.2] using CDC-ILI and 44.1% [95% CI: -50.5, 79.3] using WHO-ILI definitions, respectively. Serum VIR-2482 levels were similar regardless of influenza status; variants with reduced VIR-2482 susceptibility were not detected. Local injection-site reactions were mild and similar across groups., Conclusion: VIR-2482 1200 mg IM was well tolerated but did not significantly prevent protocol-defined ILI. Secondary endpoint analyses suggest this dose may have reduced influenza A illness., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: The transmission of influenza virus in households, especially by children, is a major route of infection. Prior studies suggest that timely antiviral treatment of ill cases may reduce infection in household contacts. The aim of the study was to compare the effects of oseltamivir (OTV) and baloxavir marboxil (BXM) treatment of index cases on the secondary attack rate (SAR) of influenza within household., Methods: A post hoc analysis was done in BLOCKSTONE trial-a placebo-controlled, double-blinded post-exposure prophylaxis of BXM. Data were derived from the laboratory-confirmed index cases' household contacts who received placebo in the trial and also from household members who did not participate in the trial but completed illness questionnaires. To assess the SAR of household members, multivariate analyses adjusted for factors including age, vaccination status, and household size were performed and compared between contacts of index cases treated with BXM or OTV., Results: In total, 185 index cases (116 treated with BXM and 69 treated with OTV) and 410 household contacts (201 from trial, 209 by questionnaire) were included. The Poisson regression modeling showed that the SAR in household contacts of index cases treated with BXM and OTV was 10.8% and 18.5%, respectively; the adjusted relative reduction in SAR was 41.8% (95% confidence interval: 1.0%-65.7%, p = 0.0456) greater with BXM than OTV. Similar reductions were found in contacts from the trial and those included by questionnaire., Conclusion: BXM treatment of index cases appeared to result in a greater reduction in secondary household transmission than OTV treatment., (© 2024 The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

We evaluated clinical and socioeconomic burdens of respiratory disease in banana farm workers in Guatemala. We offered all eligible workers enrollment during June 15-December 30, 2020, and annually, then tracked them for influenza-like illnesses (ILI) through self-reporting to study nurses, sentinel surveillance at health posts, and absenteeism. Workers who had ILI submitted nasopharyngeal swab specimens for testing for influenza virus, respiratory syncytial virus, and SARS-CoV-2, then completed surveys at days 0, 7, and 28. Through October 10, 2021, a total of 1,833 workers reported 169 ILIs (12.0 cases/100 person-years), and 43 (25.4%) were laboratory-confirmed infections with SARS-CoV-2 (3.1 cases/100 person-years). Workers who had SARS-CoV-2‒positive ILIs reported more frequent anosmia, dysgeusia, difficulty concentrating, and irritability and worse clinical and well-being severity scores than workers who had test result‒negative ILIs. Workers who had positive results also had greater absenteeism and lost income. These results support prioritization of farm workers in Guatemala for COVID-19 vaccination.

Background: We conducted double-blind, placebo-controlled trials assessing the efficacy and tolerability of favipiravir in acute influenza., Methods: Otherwise healthy adults with influenza-like symptoms and fever of ≤48 hours were randomized to favipiravir (1800 mg twice daily [BID] on day 1, 800 mg BID on days 2-5) or placebo tablets (1:1 in US316; 3:1 in US317). The primary efficacy endpoint was the time to illness alleviation when 6 influenza symptoms were self-rated as absent or mild and fever was absent in the intention-to-treat, influenza-infected participants., Results: In US316 (301 favipiravir, 322 placebo), favipiravir was associated with a 14.4-hour reduction (median, 84.2 vs 98.6 hours; P = .004) in time to illness alleviation vs placebo. In US317 (526 favipiravir, 169 placebo), favipiravir did not significantly reduce time to alleviation (median, 77.8 vs 83.9 hours). In both trials favipiravir was associated with reduced viral titers, RNA load area under the curve over days 1-5, and median times to cessation of virus detection (P < .001). Aside from asymptomatic hyperuricemia, no important differences in adverse events were found., Conclusions: This favipiravir dosing regimen demonstrated significant antiviral efficacy but inconsistent illness alleviation in uncomplicated influenza. Studies of higher doses and antiviral combinations for treating serious influenza and other RNA viral infections are warranted. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT02026349; NCT02008344., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. F. G. H. has served as unpaid consultant to Medivector and Fujifilm during the clinical development of favipiravir and to other companies involved in developing influenza therapeutics or vaccines (Appili, Gilead, GSK, Janssen/J&J, MedImmune, Merck, Ridgeback, Roche/Genentech, Versatope, Vir, Visterra). Cidara, Enanta, Shionogi, and Versatope have made charitable donations for his consulting, and both Shionogi and Roche have provided meeting travel support. All of the other co-authors were employees of Medivector at the time of the trials but are no longer employees. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Animal and human data indicate variable effects of interferons in treating coronavirus infections according to inflammatory status and timing of therapy. In this sub-study of the MIRACLE trial (MERS-CoV Infection Treated with a Combination of Lopinavir-Ritonavir and Interferon β-1b), we evaluated the heterogeneity of treatment effect of interferon-β1b and lopinavir-ritonavir versus placebo among hospitalized patients with MERS on 90-day mortality, according to cytokine levels and timing of therapy. We measured plasma levels of 17 cytokines at enrollment and tested the treatment effect on 90-day mortality according to cytokine levels (higher versus lower levels using the upper tertile (67%) as a cutoff point) and time to treatment (≤ 7 days versus > 7 days of symptom onset) using interaction tests. Among 70 included patients, 32 received interferon-β1b and lopinavir-ritonavir and 38 received placebo. Interferon-β1b and lopinavir-ritonavir reduced mortality in patients with lower IL-2, IL-8 and IL-13 plasma concentrations but not in patients with higher levels (p-value for interaction = 0.09, 0.07, and 0.05, respectively) and with early but not late therapy (p = 0.002). There was no statistically significant heterogeneity of treatment effect according to other cytokine levels. Further work is needed to evaluate whether the assessment of inflammatory status can help in identifying patients with MERS who may benefit from interferon-β1b and lopinavir-ritonavir. Trial registration: This is a sub-study of the MIRACLE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02845843)., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Prompt antiviral treatment has the potential to reduce influenza virus transmission to close contacts, but rigorous data on the magnitude of treatment effects on transmission are limited. Animal model data indicate that rapid reductions in viral replication after antiviral treatment reduce the risk of transmission. Observational and clinical trial data with oseltamivir and other neuraminidase inhibitors indicate that prompt treatment of household index patients seems to reduce the risk of illness in contacts, although the magnitude of the reported effects has varied widely across studies. In addition, the potential risk of transmitting drug-resistant variants exists with all approved classes of influenza antivirals. A controlled trial examining baloxavir treatment efficacy to reduce transmission, including the risk of transmitting virus with reduced baloxavir susceptibility, is currently in progress. If reduced transmission risk is confirmed, modeling studies indicate that early treatment could have major epidemiologic benefits in seasonal and pandemic influenza., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

It is more than 20 years since the neuraminidase inhibitors, oseltamivir and zanamivir were approved for the treatment and prevention of influenza. Guidelines for global surveillance and methods for evaluating resistance were established initially by the Neuraminidase Inhibitor Susceptibility Network (NISN), which merged 10 years ago with the International Society for influenza and other Respiratory Virus Diseases (isirv) to become the isirv-Antiviral Group (isirv-AVG). With the ongoing development of new influenza polymerase inhibitors and recent approval of baloxavir marboxil, the isirv-AVG held a closed meeting in August 2019 to discuss the impact of resistance to these inhibitors. Following this meeting and review of the current literature, this article is intended to summarize current knowledge regarding the clinical impact of resistance to polymerase inhibitors and approaches for surveillance and methods for laboratory evaluation of resistance, both in vitro and in animal models. We highlight limitations and gaps in current knowledge and suggest some strategies for addressing these gaps, including the need for additional clinical studies of influenza antiviral drug combinations. Lessons learned from influenza resistance monitoring may also be helpful for establishing future drug susceptibility surveillance and testing for SARS-CoV-2., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Baloxavir marboxil has demonstrated safety and efficacy in treating adult and adolescent outpatients with acute influenza (CAPSTONE-1 trial). Here, we report a subgroup analysis of outcomes in adolescents from the trial., Methods: CAPSTONE-1 was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Eligible adolescent outpatients (aged 12-17 years of age) were randomized in a ratio of 2:1 to a single dose of baloxavir 40/80 mg if less than/greater than or equal to 80 kg or placebo. The main outcomes were the time to alleviation of symptoms (TTAS), duration of infectious virus detection, and incidence of adverse events (AEs)., Results: Among 117 adolescent patients, 90 (77%) comprised the intent-to-treat infected population (63 baloxavir and 27 placebo; 88.9% A(H3N2)). The median TTAS was 38.6 hours shorter (95% confidence interval: -2.6, 68.4) in the baloxavir group compared with placebo (median TTAS, 54.1 hours vs 92.7 hours, P = .0055). The median time to sustained cessation of infectious virus detection was 72.0 hours for baloxavir compared with 120.0 hours for placebo recipients (P < .0001). Treatment-emergent PA/I38X-substituted viruses were detected in 5 of the 51 (9.8%) baloxavir recipients. In the safety population (76 baloxavir and 41 placebo), AEs were less common in baloxavir than placebo recipients (17.1% vs 34.1%; P = .0421). In the baloxavir group, no AEs except for diarrhea were reported in 2 or more patients., Conclusions: Baloxavir demonstrated clinical and virologic efficacy in the otherwise healthy adolescents with acute influenza compared with placebo. There were no safety concerns identified. These results were similar to the adult population in CAPSTONE-1 and support baloxavir as a treatment option in adolescents., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society.)

In the last few years, several new direct-acting influenza antivirals have been licensed, and others have advanced in clinical development. The increasing diversity of antiviral classes should allow an adequate public health response should a resistant virus to one agent or class widely circulate. One new antiviral, baloxavir marboxil, has been approved in the United States for treatment of influenza in those at high risk of developing influenza-related complications. Except for intravenous zanamivir in European Union countries, no antivirals have been licensed specifically for the indication of severe influenza or hospitalized influenza. This review addresses recent clinical developments involving selected polymerase inhibitors, neuraminidase inhibitors, antibody-based therapeutics, and host-directed therapies. There are many knowledge gaps for most of these agents because some data are not published and multiple pivotal studies are in progress at present. This review also considers important clinical research issues, including regulatory pathways, study designs, endpoints, and target populations encountered during the clinical development of novel therapeutics., (Copyright © 2021 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; all rights reserved.)

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to affect millions worldwide. Given the rapidly growing evidence base, we implemented a living guideline model to provide guidance on the management of patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU., Methods: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Disease 2019 panel has expanded to include 43 experts from 14 countries; all panel members completed an electronic conflict-of-interest disclosure form. In this update, the panel addressed nine questions relevant to managing severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. We used the World Health Organization's definition of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019. The systematic reviews team searched the literature for relevant evidence, aiming to identify systematic reviews and clinical trials. When appropriate, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis to summarize treatment effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, then used the evidence-to-decision framework to generate recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility., Results: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued nine statements (three new and six updated) related to ICU patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. For severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019, the panel strongly recommends using systemic corticosteroids and venous thromboprophylaxis but strongly recommends against using hydroxychloroquine. In addition, the panel suggests using dexamethasone (compared with other corticosteroids) and suggests against using convalescent plasma and therapeutic anticoagulation outside clinical trials. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel suggests using remdesivir in nonventilated patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 and suggests against starting remdesivir in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 outside clinical trials. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue a recommendation on the use of awake prone positioning., Conclusion: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued several recommendations to guide healthcare professionals caring for adults with critical or severe coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. Based on a living guideline model the recommendations will be updated as new evidence becomes available., Competing Interests: Dr. Evans has disclosed that she is a PI on a multi-center observational cohort study of hospitalized patients with severe acute respiratory infection, funded by the CDC Foundation. Drs. Prescott, Chertow, and Mammen disclosed government work. Dr. Fan received funding from Lung Technologies, MC3 Cardiopulmonary, and Fresenius Medical Care. Dr. Derde’s institution received funding from ZonMw (Den Haag, Europe) grant number 10150062010003, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), and from Rapid European COVID-19 Emergency Research response (RECOVER) (Europe, H2020) grant agreement No 101003589, and her institution has agreements with Faron (interferon), SOBI (anakinra), and Abbvie (lopinavir/r) to supply drugs for the above-funded studies. Dr. Du’s institution received funding from the Ministry of Science and Technology for a COVID-19–related study (NCT04244591). Dr. Crowther received funding from Servier Canada, Asahi Kasei, Precision Biologicals, Hemostasis Reference Laboratory, Pfizer, CSL Behring, Diagnostica Stago, and he disclosed that he undertakes significant amounts of both medical malpractice and product work in the general areas of hematology and thromboembolism. Dr. Belley-Cote received funding from CIHR, Roche, and Bayer as a principal investigator for the ACT trial that evaluates hydroxychloroquine, interferon beta, colchicine, aspirin, and rivaroxaban in patients with COVID-19. Dr. Zarychanski received operating grants from CIHR, LifeArc Foundation, Thistledown Foundation, and Research Manitoba for grants related to anticoagulation in COVID-19. Dr. McGreer’s institution received funding from Appili Therapeutics. Dr. Hayden disclosed he is a nonpaid consultant for multiple companies involved in developing COVID-19 countermeasures (Arcturus, Cidara, Gilead, GSK, resTORbio, Regeneron, SAB Biotherapeutics, Takeda, Vir), and he is a DSMB member for CytoDyn. Dr. Martin received funding from serving on a clinical trial data monitoring board. Dr. Antonelli received funding from consulting for Intersurgical and ESTOR. Dr. Waleed Alhazzani is the principal investigator on awake proning trial in COVID-19 COVI-PRONE. Dr. Yaseen Arabi is the principal investigator on a clinical trial for lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon in Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and he was a nonpaid consultant on antiviral active for MERS-coronavirus (CoV) for Gilead Sciences and SAB Biotherapeutics. He is an investigator on REMAP-CAP trial and is a Board Members of the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC). He is a co-investigator on the REMAP-CAP trial and on an awake proning trial in COVID-19 (COVI-PRONE). Dr. Maurizio Cecconi declared consultancy work with Edwards Lifesciences, Directed Systems, and Cheetah Medical: Dr. Lennie Derde is an investigator on REMAP-CAP trial, the NVIC (Dutch National ICU society) chair of Taskforce Infectious Diseases (standing committee), member of ESICM Coronavirus Taskforce (started with this outbreak), and chair of the ESICM Clinical Training Committee; all are unpaid positions. Dr. Laura Evans is the team leader for the critical care section of the NIH COVID-19 management guideline. Dr. Eddy Fan declared receiving consultancy fees from ALung Technologies and MC3 Cardiopulmonary. Dr. Frederick Hayden is a noncompensated consultant to Gilead Sciences, Regeneron, Cidara, Fujifilm, Ridgeback, Merck, Roche/Genentech, GSK, Vir, resTORbio, and SAB Biotherapeutics, and he is a DSMB member for CytoDyn therapeutic clinical trial: Dr. Manoj J. Mammen is an investigator for the U.S. NIH PASSive Immunity Trial for Our Nation (PassItOn) trial: Dr. Greg Martin is a member of the NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines, principal investigator for COVID-19 diagnostic testing (U.S. NIH RADx program) and has served as a research consultant to Genentech, Grifols, Regeneron and Siemens. Dr. Massimo Antonelli declared consultancy with Toray/Estor and Fisher and Pykel and research grant from GE. Dr. Flavia Machado is member of the executive committee for the CODEX study. Dr. Sheila Nainan Myatra is on the steering committee of the COVID Steroid 2 Trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04509973) and the HydrOxychloroquine Prophylaxis Evaluation (HOPE) Trial (CTRI registration No.CTRI/2020/05/025067). Dr Naomi Hammond is on the steering committee of the COVID Steroid 2 Trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04509973) and the HydrOxychloroquine Prophylaxis Evaluation (HOPE) Trial (CTRI registration No.CTRI/2020/05/025067). Dr. Emilie Belley-Cote reports grants from Bayer, grants from Roche outside the submitted work. She is a principal investigator for the ACT trial: The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Background: The pharmacokinetics and appropriate dose regimens of favipiravir are unknown in hospitalized influenza patients; such data are also needed to determine dosage selection for favipiravir trials in COVID-19., Methods: In this dose-escalating study, favipiravir pharmacokinetics and tolerability were assessed in critically ill influenza patients. Participants received one of two dosing regimens; Japan licensed dose (1600 mg BID on day 1 and 600 mg BID on the following days) and the higher dose (1800 mg/800 mg BID) trialed in uncomplicated influenza. The primary pharmacokinetic endpoint was the proportion of patients with a minimum observed plasma trough concentration (C trough ) ≥20 mg/L at all measured time points after the second dose., Results: Sixteen patients were enrolled into the low dose group and 19 patients into the high dose group of the study. Favipiravir C trough decreased significantly over time in both groups (p <0.01). Relative to day 2 (48 hrs), concentrations were 91.7% and 90.3% lower in the 1600/600 mg group and 79.3% and 89.5% lower in the 1800/800 mg group at day 7 and 10, respectively. In contrast, oseltamivir concentrations did not change significantly over time. A 2-compartment disposition model with first-order absorption and elimination described the observed favipiravir concentration-time data well. Modeling demonstrated that less than 50% of patients achieved C trough ≥20 mg/L for >80% of the duration of treatment of the two dose regimens evaluated (18.8% and 42.1% of patients for low and high dose regimen, respectively). Increasing the favipravir dosage predicted a higher proportion of patients reaching this threshold of 20 mg/L, suggesting that dosing regimens of ≥3600/2600 mg might be required for adequate concentrations. The two dosing regimens were well-tolerated in critical ill patients with influenza., Conclusion: The two dosing regimens proposed for uncomplicated influenza did not achieve our pre-defined treatment threshold., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest B.C reports compensated consulting for Roche as one of the steering committee members of transmission study. Y.W reports travel support from Toyama for consulting previous data of favipiravir and from Roche for a transmission study meeting. F.G.H. reports personal fees from WHO and from University of Alabama Antiviral Drug Discovery and Development Consortium: payments to the University of Virginia for his service on DSMBs for Celltrion, GSK, and Vaccitech; charitable donations from Shionogi, resTORbio, and Cidara, for his consulting; travel support from Shionogi; and noncompensated consulting for various companies engaged in developing influenza therapeutics or vaccines (CoCrystal, Farmak, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Janssen, MedImmune, Medivector/FujiFilm, Regeneron, SAB Biotherapeutics, Vir, Visterra). All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and no other conflicts of interest are reported., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Whether combined treatment with recombinant interferon beta-1b and lopinavir-ritonavir reduces mortality among patients hospitalized with Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) is unclear., Methods: We conducted a randomized, adaptive, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled patients at nine sites in Saudi Arabia. Hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed MERS were randomly assigned to receive recombinant interferon beta-1b plus lopinavir-ritonavir (intervention) or placebo for 14 days. The primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality, with a one-sided P-value threshold of 0.025. Prespecified subgroup analyses and safety analyses were conducted. Because of the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019, the data and safety monitoring board requested an unplanned interim analysis and subsequently recommended the termination of enrollment and the reporting of the results., Results: A total of 95 patients were enrolled; 43 patients were assigned to the intervention group and 52 to the placebo group. A total of 12 patients (28%) in the intervention group and 23 (44%) in the placebo group died by day 90. The analysis of the primary outcome, with accounting for the adaptive design, yielded a risk difference of -19 percentage points (upper boundary of the 97.5% confidence interval [CI], -3; one-sided P = 0.024). In a prespecified subgroup analysis, treatment within 7 days after symptom onset led to lower 90-day mortality than use of placebo (relative risk, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.75), whereas later treatment did not. Serious adverse events occurred in 4 patients (9%) in the intervention group and in 10 (19%) in the placebo group., Conclusions: A combination of recombinant interferon beta-1b and lopinavir-ritonavir led to lower mortality than placebo among patients who had been hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed MERS. The effect was greatest when treatment was started within 7 days after symptom onset. (Funded by the King Abdullah International Medical Research Center; MIRACLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02845843.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

The possible effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) on COVID-19 disease severity have generated considerable debate. We performed a single-center, retrospective analysis of hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China, who had definite clinical outcome (dead or discharged) by February 15, 2020. Patients on anti-hypertensive treatment with or without ACEI/ARB were compared on their clinical characteristics and outcomes. The medical records from 702 patients were screened. Among the 101 patients with a history of hypertension and taking at least one anti-hypertensive medication, 40 patients were receiving ACEI/ARB as part of their regimen, and 61 patients were on antihypertensive medication other than ACEI/ARB. We observed no statistically significant differences in percentages of in-hospital mortality (28% vs. 34%, P = 0.46), ICU admission (20% vs. 28%, P = 0.37) or invasive mechanical ventilation (18% vs. 26%, P = 0.31) between patients with or without ACEI/ARB treatment. Further multivariable adjustment of age and gender did not provide evidence for a significant association between ACEI/ARB treatment and severe COVID-19 outcomes. Our findings confirm the lack of an association between chronic receipt of renin-angiotensin system antagonists and severe outcomes of COVID-19. Patients should continue previous anti-hypertensive therapy until further evidence is available.

Background: Baloxavir marboxil (hereafter baloxavir), a selective inhibitor of influenza cap-dependent endonuclease, was approved in 2018 in the USA and Japan for the treatment of uncomplicated influenza in otherwise healthy individuals aged 12 years and older. We aimed to study the efficacy of baloxavir in outpatients at high risk of developing influenza-associated complications., Methods: We did a double-blind, placebo-controlled and oseltamivir-controlled trial in outpatients aged 12 years and older in 551 sites in 17 countries and territories. Eligible patients had clinically diagnosed influenza-like illness, at least one risk factor for influenza-associated complications (eg, age older than 65 years), and a symptom duration of less than 48 h. Patients were stratified by baseline symptom score (≤14 vs ≥15), pre-existing and worsened symptoms at onset of illness compared with pre-influenza (yes or no), region (Asia, North America and Europe, or southern hemisphere), and weight (<80 kg vs ≥80 kg), and randomly assigned (1:1:1) via an interactive web-response system to either a single weight-based dose of baloxavir (40 mg for patients weighing <80 kg and 80 mg for patients weighing ≥80 kg; baloxavir group), oseltamivir 75 mg twice daily for 5 days (oseltamivir group), or matching placebo (placebo group). All patients, investigators, study personnel, and data analysts were masked to treatment assignment until database lock. The primary endpoint was time to improvement of influenza symptoms (TTIIS) in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug and had RT-PCR-confirmed influenza virus infection. Safety was assessed in all patients who receved at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02949011., Findings: 2184 patients were enrolled from Jan 11, 2017, to March 30, 2018, and randomly assigned to receive baloxavir (n=730), placebo (n=729), or oseltamivir (n=725). The modified intention-to-treat population included 1163 patients: 388 in the baloxavir group, 386 in the placebo group, and 389 in the oseltamivir group. 557 (48%) of 1163 patients had influenza A H3N2, 484 (42%) had influenza B, 80 (7%) had influenza A H1N1, 14 patients had a mixed infection, and 28 had infections with non-typable viruses. The median TTIIS was shorter in the baloxavir group (73·2 h [95% CI 67·2 to 85·1]) than in the placebo group (102·3 h [92·7 to 113·1]; difference 29·1 h [95% CI 14·6 to 42·8]; p<0·0001). The median TTIIS in the oseltamivir group was 81·0 h (95% CI 69·4 to 91·5), with a difference from the baloxavir group of 7·7 h (-7·9 to 22·7). Adverse events were reported in 183 (25%) of 730 patients in the baloxavir group, 216 (30%) of 727 in the placebo group, and 202 (28%) of 721 in the oseltamivir group. Serious adverse events were noted in five patients in the baloxavir group, nine patients in the placebo group, and eight patients in the oseltamivir group; one case each of hypertension and nausea in the placebo group and two cases of transaminase elevation in the oseltamivir group were considered to be treatment related. Polymerase acidic protein variants with Ile38Thr, Ile38Met, or Ile38Asn substitutions conferring reduced baloxavir susceptibility emerged in 15 (5%) of 290 baloxavir recipients assessed for amino acid substitutions in the virus., Interpretation: Single-dose baloxavir has superior efficacy to placebo and similar efficacy to oseltamivir for ameliorating influenza symptoms in high-risk outpatients. The safety of baloxavir was comparable to placebo. This study supports early therapy for patients at high risk of complications of influenza to speed clinical recovery and reduce complications., Funding: Shionogi., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: We assessed the safety and effectiveness of baloxavir marboxil administration in Japanese children with influenza., Methods: This open-label study administered 1 weight-adjusted dose of baloxavir to 107 children aged 1-11 years with laboratory-confirmed, febrile influenza virus infection of ≤48 hours duration., Results: Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 34.6% of patients, most commonly vomiting (7.5%); no serious AEs or AEs causing discontinuation occurred. The median time to alleviation of influenza illness was 44.6 hours (95% confidence interval, 38.9-62.5 hours), to resolution of fever was 21.4 hours, and to sustained cessation of infectious viral shedding was 24.0 hours. However, viruses with amino acid substitutions in the viral polymerase acidic protein at position I38 (PA/I38T/M) emerged in 18 of 77 (23.4%) patients. Emergence was associated with longer infectious virus detectability (median time, 180.0 hours) and time to illness alleviation (median, 79.6 vs 42.8 hours in patients without PA/I38T/M-substituted viruses). Among patients with PA/I38T/M-substituted virus emergence, those with baseline hemagglutinin inhibition (HAI) antibody titer <40 experienced delay in time to illness alleviation (median, 85.4 vs 56.0 hours in patients with higher baseline HAI antibody titer)., Conclusions: A single, oral dose of baloxavir marboxil was well tolerated and rapidly reduced viral titers, but the common emergence of PA/I38T/M-substituted viruses warrants consideration of alternative dosing regimens in young children., Clinical Trials Registration: Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center Clinical Trials Information (Japic CTI-163417)., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: Baloxavir marboxil (baloxavir) is a polymerase acidic protein (PA) endonuclease inhibitor with clinical efficacy in the treatment of uncomplicated influenza, including in outpatients at increased risk for complications. The postexposure prophylactic efficacy of baloxavir in the household setting is unclear., Methods: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the postexposure prophylactic efficacy of baloxavir in household contacts of index patients with confirmed influenza during the 2018-2019 season in Japan. The participants were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either a single dose of baloxavir or placebo. The primary end point was clinical influenza, as confirmed by reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction testing, over a period of 10 days. The occurrence of baloxavir-selected PA substitutions associated with reduced susceptibility was assessed., Results: A total of 752 household contacts of 545 index patients were randomly assigned to receive baloxavir or placebo. Among the index patients, 95.6% had influenza A virus infection, 73.6% were younger than 12 years of age, and 52.7% received baloxavir. Among the participants who could be evaluated (374 in the baloxavir group and 375 in the placebo group), the percentage in whom clinical influenza developed was significantly lower in the baloxavir group than in the placebo group (1.9% vs. 13.6%) (adjusted risk ratio, 0.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06 to 0.30; P<0.001). Baloxavir was effective in high-risk, pediatric, and unvaccinated subgroups of participants. The risk of influenza infection, regardless of symptoms, was lower with baloxavir than with placebo (adjusted risk ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.58). The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups (22.2% in the baloxavir group and 20.5% in the placebo group). In the baloxavir group, the viral PA substitutions I38T/M or E23K were detected in 10 (2.7%) and 5 (1.3%) participants, respectively. No transmission of these variants from baloxavir-treated index patients to participants in the placebo group was detected; however, several instances of transmission to participants in the baloxavir group could not be ruled out., Conclusions: Single-dose baloxavir showed significant postexposure prophylactic efficacy in preventing influenza in household contacts of patients with influenza. (Funded by Shionogi; Japan Primary Registries Network number, JapicCTI-184180.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed., Methods: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations., Results: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy., Conclusion: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by a novel corinavirus (later named SARS-CoV-2 virus), was fistly reported in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China towards the end of 2019. Large-scale spread within China and internationally led the World Health Organization to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on 30 th January 2020. The clinical manifestations of COVID-19 virus infection include asymptomatic infection, mild upper respiratory symptoms, severe viral pneumonia with respiratory failure, and even death. There are no antivirals of proven clinical efficacy in coronavirus infections. Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue, has inhibitory effects on animal and human highly pathogenic coronaviruses, including MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, in in vitro and in vivo experiments. It is also inhibitory against the COVID-19 virus in vitro. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of remdesivir in adult patients with severe COVID-19., Methods: The protocol is prepared in accordance with the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) guidelines. This is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Adults (≥ 18 years) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 virus infection, severe pneumonia signs or symptoms, and radiologically confirmed severe pneumonia are randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenously administered remdesivir or placebo for 10 days. The primary endpoint is time to clinical improvement (censored at day 28), defined as the time (in days) from randomization of study treatment (remdesivir or placebo) until a decline of two categories on a six-category ordinal scale of clinical status (1 = discharged; 6 = death) or live discharge from hospital. One interim analysis for efficacy and futility will be conducted once half of the total number of events required has been observed., Discussion: This is the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial in COVID-19. Enrolment began in sites in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China on 6 th February 2020., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04257656. Registered on 6 February 2020.

Background: No specific antiviral drug has been proven effective for treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue prodrug, has inhibitory effects on pathogenic animal and human coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro, and inhibits Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, SARS-CoV-1, and SARS-CoV-2 replication in animal models., Methods: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial at ten hospitals in Hubei, China. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an interval from symptom onset to enrolment of 12 days or less, oxygen saturation of 94% or less on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less, and radiologically confirmed pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg on days 2-10 in single daily infusions) or the same volume of placebo infusions for 10 days. Patients were permitted concomitant use of lopinavir-ritonavir, interferons, and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement up to day 28, defined as the time (in days) from randomisation to the point of a decline of two levels on a six-point ordinal scale of clinical status (from 1=discharged to 6=death) or discharged alive from hospital, whichever came first. Primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety analysis was done in all patients who started their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04257656., Findings: Between Feb 6, 2020, and March 12, 2020, 237 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (158 to remdesivir and 79 to placebo); one patient in the placebo group who withdrew after randomisation was not included in the ITT population. Remdesivir use was not associated with a difference in time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio 1·23 [95% CI 0·87-1·75]). Although not statistically significant, patients receiving remdesivir had a numerically faster time to clinical improvement than those receiving placebo among patients with symptom duration of 10 days or less (hazard ratio 1·52 [0·95-2·43]). Adverse events were reported in 102 (66%) of 155 remdesivir recipients versus 50 (64%) of 78 placebo recipients. Remdesivir was stopped early because of adverse events in 18 (12%) patients versus four (5%) patients who stopped placebo early., Interpretation: In this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits. However, the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies., Funding: Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Emergency Project of COVID-19, National Key Research and Development Program of China, the Beijing Science and Technology Project., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: No therapeutics have yet been proven effective for the treatment of severe illness caused by SARS-CoV-2., Methods: We conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label trial involving hospitalized adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which causes the respiratory illness Covid-19, and an oxygen saturation (Sao 2 ) of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air or a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen (Pao 2 ) to the fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio 2 ) of less than 300 mm Hg. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg and 100 mg, respectively) twice a day for 14 days, in addition to standard care, or standard care alone. The primary end point was the time to clinical improvement, defined as the time from randomization to either an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale or discharge from the hospital, whichever came first., Results: A total of 199 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent randomization; 99 were assigned to the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 100 to the standard-care group. Treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir was not associated with a difference from standard care in the time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio for clinical improvement, 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.80). Mortality at 28 days was similar in the lopinavir-ritonavir group and the standard-care group (19.2% vs. 25.0%; difference, -5.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -17.3 to 5.7). The percentages of patients with detectable viral RNA at various time points were similar. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, lopinavir-ritonavir led to a median time to clinical improvement that was shorter by 1 day than that observed with standard care (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.91). Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, but serious adverse events were more common in the standard-care group. Lopinavir-ritonavir treatment was stopped early in 13 patients (13.8%) because of adverse events., Conclusions: In hospitalized adult patients with severe Covid-19, no benefit was observed with lopinavir-ritonavir treatment beyond standard care. Future trials in patients with severe illness may help to confirm or exclude the possibility of a treatment benefit. (Funded by Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development and others; Chinese Clinical Trial Register number, ChiCTR2000029308.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: A synergistic effect of combination therapy with favipiravir and oseltamivir has been reported in preclinical models of influenza. However, no data are available on the clinical effectiveness of combination therapy in severe influenza., Methods: Data from 2 separate prospective studies of influenza adults were used to compare outcomes between combination and oseltamivir monotherapy. Outcomes included rate of clinical improvement (defined as a decrease of 2 categories on a 7-category ordinal scale) and viral RNA detectability over time. Subhazard ratios (sHRs) were estimated by the Fine and Gray model for competing risks., Results: In total, 40 patients were treated with combination therapy and 128 with oseltamivir alone. Clinical improvement on day 14 in the combination group was higher than in the monotherapy group (62.5% vs 42.2%; P = .0247). The adjusted sHR for combination therapy was 2.06 (95% confidence interval, 1.30-3.26). The proportion of undetectable viral RNA at day 10 was higher in the combination group than the oseltamivir group (67.5% vs 21.9%; P < .01). No significant differences were observed in mortality or other outcomes., Conclusions: Favipiravir and oseltamivir combination therapy may accelerate clinical recovery compared to oseltamivir monotherapy in severe influenza, and this strategy should be formally evaluated in a randomized controlled trial., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of ribavirin and recombinant interferon (RBV/rIFN) therapy on the outcomes of critically ill patients with Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), accounting for time-varying confounders., Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of critically ill patients with laboratory-confirmed MERS from 14 hospitals in Saudi Arabia diagnosed between September 2012 and January 2018. We evaluated the association of RBV/rIFN with 90-day mortality and MERS coronavirus (MERS-CoV) RNA clearance using marginal structural modeling to account for baseline and time-varying confounders., Results: Of 349 MERS patients, 144 (41.3%) patients received RBV/rIFN (RBV and/or rIFN-α2a, rIFN-α2b, or rIFN-β1a; none received rIFN-β1b). RBV/rIFN was initiated at a median of 2 days (Q1, Q3: 1, 3 days) from intensive care unit admission. Crude 90-day mortality was higher in patients with RBV/rIFN compared to no RBV/rIFN (106/144 [73.6%] vs 126/205 [61.5%]; P = .02]. After adjusting for baseline and time-varying confounders using a marginal structural model, RBV/rIFN was not associated with changes in 90-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.03 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .73-1.44]; P = .87) or with more rapid MERS-CoV RNA clearance (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, .30-1.44]; P = .29)., Conclusions: In this observational study, RBV/rIFN (RBV and/or rIFN-α2a, rIFN-α2b, or rIFN-β1a) therapy was commonly used in critically ill MERS patients but was not associated with reduction in 90-day mortality or in faster MERS-CoV RNA clearance., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)