Oseltamivir, amantadine, and ribavirin combination antiviral therapy versus oseltamivir monotherapy for the treatment of influenza: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Influenza continues to have a substantial socioeconomic and health impact despite a long established vaccination programme and approved antivirals. Preclinical data suggest that combining antivirals might be more effective than administering oseltamivir alone in the treatment of influenza. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, multicentre phase 2 trial of a combination of oseltamivir, amantadine, and ribavirin versus oseltamivir monotherapy with matching placebo for the treatment of influenza in 50 sites, consisting of academic medical centre clinics, emergency rooms, and private physician offices in the USA, Thailand, Mexico, Argentina, and Australia. Participants who were aged at least 18 years with influenza and were at increased risk of complications were randomly assigned (1:1) by an online computer-generated randomisation system to receive either oseltamivir (75 mg), amantadine (100 mg), and ribavirin (600 mg) combination therapy or oseltamivir monotherapy twice daily for 5 days, given orally, and participants were followed up for 28 days. Blinded treatment kits were used to achieve masking of patients and staff. The primary endpoint was the percentage of participants with virus detectable by PCR in nasopharyngeal swab at day 3, and was assessed in participants who were randomised, had influenza infection confirmed by the central laboratory on a baseline nasopharyngeal sample, and had received at least one dose of study drug. Safety assessment was done in all patients in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01227967. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2011, and April 29, 2016, 633 participants were randomly assigned to receive combination antiviral therapy (n=316) or monotherapy (n=317). Seven participants were excluded from analysis: three were not properly randomised, three withdrew from the study, and one was lost to follow-up. The primary analysis included 394 participants, excluding 47 in the pilot phase, 172 without confirmed influenza, and 13 without an endpoint sample. 80 (40·0%) of 200 participants in the combination group had detectable virus at day 3 compared with 97 (50·0%) of 194 (mean difference 10·0, 95% CI 0·2-19·8, p=0·046) in the monotherapy group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal-related disorders, primarily nausea (65 [12%] of 556 reported adverse events in the combination group vs 63 [11%] of 585 reported adverse events in the monotherapy group), diarrhoea (56 [10%] of 556 vs 64 [11%] of 585), and vomiting (39 [7%] of 556 vs 23 [4%] of 585). There was no benefit in multiple clinical secondary endpoints, such as median duration of symptoms (4·5 days in the combination group vs 4·0 days in the monotherapy group; p=0·21). One death occurred in the study in an elderly participant in the monotherapy group who died of cardiovascular failure 13 days after randomisation, judged by the site investigator as not related to study intervention. INTERPRETATION: Although combination treatment showed a significant decrease in viral shedding at day 3 relative to monotherapy, this difference was not associated with improved clinical benefit. More work is needed to understand why there was no clinical benefit when a difference in virological outcome was identified. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, USA.

Molecular epidemiology of tuberculosis in foreign-born persons living in San Francisco.

RATIONALE: In San Francisco, 70% of the tuberculosis cases occur among foreign-born persons, mainly from China, the Philippines, and Mexico. We postulate that there are differences in the characteristics and risk factors for tuberculosis among these populations. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical, epidemiological and microbiological characteristics of tuberculosis caused by recent infection and rapid evolution in the major groups of foreign-born and the U.S.-born populations. METHODS: We analyzed data from a 20-year prospective community-based study of the molecular epidemiology of tuberculosis in San Francisco. We included all culture-positive tuberculosis cases in the City during the study period. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We calculated and compared incidence rates, clinical and microbiological characteristics, and risk factors for being a secondary case between the various foreign-born and U.S.-born tuberculosis populations. Between 1991 and 2010, there were 4,058 new cases of tuberculosis, of which 1,226 (30%) were U.S.-born and 2,832 (70%) were foreign-born. A total of 3,278 (81%) were culture positive, of which 2,419 (74%) had complete data for analysis. The incidence rate, including the incidence rate of tuberculosis due to recent infection and rapid evolution, decreased significantly in the U.S.-born and the major foreign-born populations. The clinical and microbiological characteristics and the risk factors for tuberculosis due to recent infection differed among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: There are differences in the characteristics and the risk factors for tuberculosis due to recent transmission among the major foreign-born and U.S.-born populations in San Francisco. These differences should be considered for the design of targeted tuberculosis control interventions.