RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The United States military regularly deploys thousands of service members throughout areas of South America and Africa that are endemic for yellow fever (YF) virus. To determine if booster doses might be needed for service members who are repetitively or continually deployed to YF endemic areas, we evaluated seropositivity among US military personnel receiving a single dose of YF vaccine based on time post-vaccination. METHODS: Serum antibodies were measured using a plaque reduction neutralization test with 50% cutoff in 682 military personnel at 5-39 years post-vaccination. We determined noninferiority of immune response by comparing the proportion seropositive among those vaccinated 10-14 years previously with those vaccinated 5-9 years previously. Noninferiority was supported if the lower-bound of the 2-tailed 95% CI for p10-14years - p5-9years was ≥-0.10. Additionally, the geometric mean antibody titer (GMT) at various timepoints following vaccination were compared to the GMT at 5-9 years. RESULTS: The proportion of military service members with detectable neutralizing antibodies 10-14 years after a single dose of YF vaccine (95.8%, 95% CI 91.2-98.1%) was non-inferior to the proportion 5-9 years after vaccination (97.8%, 95% CI 93.7-99.3%). Additionally, GMT among vaccine recipients at 10-14 years post vaccination (99, 95% CI 82-121) was non-inferior to GMT in YF vaccine recipients at 5-9 years post vaccination (115, 95% CI 96-139). The proportion of vaccinees with neutralizing antibodies remained high, and non-inferior, among those vaccinated 15-19 years prior (98.5%, 95%CI 95.5-99.7%). Although the proportion seropositive decreased among vaccinees ≥ 20 years post vaccination, >90% remained seropositive. CONCLUSIONS: Neutralizing antibodies were present in > 95% of vaccine recipients for at least 19 years after vaccination, suggesting that booster doses every 10 years are not essential for most U.S. military personnel.
Assuntos
Militares , Vacina contra Febre Amarela , Febre Amarela , África , Anticorpos Antivirais , Humanos , América do Sul , Vacinação , Febre Amarela/prevenção & controleRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Duration of viral shedding is a determinant of infectivity and transmissibility, but few data exist about oseltamivir's ability to alter viral shedding. METHODS: From January 2012 through October 2017, a randomized, double-blinded multicenter clinical trial was conducted in adults aged 18-64 years at 42 sites in Thailand, the United States, and Argentina. Participants with influenza A or B and without risk factors for complications of influenza were screened for the study. Eligible participants were randomized to receive oseltamivir 75 mg or placebo twice daily for 5 days. The primary endpoint was the percentage of participants with virus detectable by polymerase chain reaction in nasopharyngeal swab at day 3. RESULTS: Of 716 adults screened for the study, 558 were randomized, and 501 were confirmed to have influenza. Forty-six participants in the pilot study were excluded, and 449 of the 455 participants in the population for the primary analysis had day 3 viral shedding results. Ninety-nine (45.0%) of 220 participants in the oseltamivir arm had virus detected at day 3 compared with 131 (57.2%) of 229 participants in the placebo arm (absolute difference of -12.2% [-21.4%, -3.0%], P =; .010). The median time to alleviation of symptoms was 79.0 hours for the oseltamivir arm and 84.0 hours for the placebo arm (P =; .34) in those with confirmed influenza infection. CONCLUSIONS: Oseltamivir decreased viral shedding in this low-risk population. However, in the population enrolled in this study, it did not significantly decrease the time to resolution of clinical symptoms. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01314911.
Assuntos
Antivirais , Influenza Humana , Adolescente , Adulto , Antivirais/uso terapêutico , Argentina/epidemiologia , Método Duplo-Cego , Humanos , Influenza Humana/tratamento farmacológico , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Oseltamivir/uso terapêutico , Projetos Piloto , Tailândia , Resultado do Tratamento , Adulto JovemRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Amantadina/uso terapêutico , Influenza Humana/tratamento farmacológico , Oseltamivir/administração & dosagem , Oseltamivir/uso terapêutico , Ribavirina/uso terapêutico , Amantadina/administração & dosagem , Antivirais/administração & dosagem , Antivirais/uso terapêutico , Argentina/epidemiologia , Austrália/epidemiologia , Método Duplo-Cego , Quimioterapia Combinada , Feminino , Humanos , Influenza Humana/epidemiologia , Masculino , México/epidemiologia , Ribavirina/administração & dosagem , Tailândia/epidemiologia , Estados Unidos/epidemiologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: During the 2010-2011 influenza season, a small sub-group of 2009 influenza A(H1N1) viruses (hereafter referred to as 2009 A(H1N1)) emerged that was associated with more severe clinical outcomes in Ecuador and North America. Genetically, the haemagglutinin (HA) of this sub-clade was distinct from HAs found in viruses associated with severe outbreaks in 2010 from the United Kingdom and from other global specimens isolated earlier in the season. OBJECTIVE: We report the emergence of a novel 2009 A(H1N1) variant possessing a re-emergent HA D222N mutation obtained from patients with severe respiratory illnesses and phylogenetically characterise these D222N mutants with other severe disease-causing variants clustering within a common emerging sub-clade. CASE REPORTS: In early 2011, three cases of 2009 A(H1N1) infection, two from Quito, Ecuador, and one from Washington, DC, USA, were complicated by severe pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation, resulting in one fatality. These cases were selected due to the reported nature of the acute respiratory distress (ARD) that were captured in Department of Defence (DoD)-sponsored global influenza surveillance nets. RESULTS: Genetically, the 2009 A(H1N1) strains isolated from two of the three severe cases carried a prominent amino acid change at position 222 (D222N) within the primary HA receptor binding site. Furthermore, these cases represent an emerging sub-clade of viruses defined by amino acid changes within HA: N31D, S162N, A186T and V272I. Phylogenetically, these viruses share a high degree of homology with strains associated with recent fatal cases in Chihuahua, Mexico. DISCUSSION: Previously, enhanced virulence associated with the change, D222G, has been clinically linked to severe morbidity and mortality. Initial observations of the prevalence of a novel sub-clade of strains in the Americas suggest that viruses with a re-emergent D222N mutation may too correlate with severe clinical manifestations. These findings warrant heightened vigilance for emerging sub-clades of 2009 A(H1N1) and presumptive clinical implications.