No abstract

Summary Background Influenza continues to have a significant socioeconomic and health impact despite a long established vaccine program and approved antivirals. Preclinical data suggest combination antivirals might be more effective than oseltamivir alone in the treatment of influenza. Methods We conducted a randomized, double-blinded, multicenter phase 2 trial of combination antivirals versus monotherapy for the treatment of influenza. Participants ≥18 years with influenza at increased risk of complications from influenza were randomized by an online computer-generated randomization system to receive either oseltamivir, amantadine, and ribavirin or oseltamivir alone for 5 days, and followed for 28 days. The primary endpoint was the percentage of participants with virus detectable by polymerase chain reaction in nasopharyngeal swab at Day 3. Among the secondary outcomes, there were safety and time to alleviation of influenza clinical symptoms. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01227967. Findings Between March 2011 and April 2016 we randomized 633 participants. Seven participants were excluded from analysis: 3 were given treatment without randomization, 3 withdrew before taking any medication, and 1 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 of 200 (40.0%) participants in the combination arm had virus detectable at Day 3 compared to 97 of 194 (50.0%) (95%C.I. 0.2–19.8%, p=0.046) in the control arm. There was no benefit, however, in multiple clinical secondary endpoints, such as median duration of symptoms (4.5 days in the combination arm vs 4.0 days in the oseltamivir arm; p = 0.21). Interpretation Although oseltamivir, amantadine, and ribavirin showed a statistically significant decrease in viral shedding at Day 3 relative to oseltamivir, this difference was not associated with improved clinical benefit. More work is needed to understand the lack of clinical benefit when a difference in virologic outcome was identified. Funding National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, United States.

No abstract

A randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of adults with acute bacterial sinusitis (ABS) compared the efficacy and safety of two azithromycin (AZM) regimens, 500 mg/day once daily for 3 days (AZM-3) or 6 days (AZM-6) to the efficacy and safety of an amoxicillin-clavulanate (AMC) regimen of 500-125 mg three times daily for 10 days. A total of 936 subjects with clinically and radiologically documented ABS were treated (AZM-3, 312; AZM-6, 311; AMC, 313). Clinical success rates were equivalent among per-protocol subjects at the end of therapy (AZM-3, 88.8%; AZM-6, 89.3%; AMC, 84.9%) and at the end of the study (AZM-3, 71.7%; AZM-6, 73.4%; AMC, 71.3%). Subjects treated with AMC reported a higher incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AE) (51.1%) than AZM-3 (31.1%, P < 0.001) or AZM-6 (37.6%, P < 0.001). More AMC subjects discontinued the study (n ‫؍‬ 28) than AZM-3 (n ‫؍‬ 7) and AZM-6 (n ‫؍‬ 11) subjects. Diarrhea was the most frequent treatment-related AE. AZM-3 and AZM-6 were each equivalent in efficacy and better tolerated than AMC for ABS.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Approximately 10 years after vaccination with the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV), an interim analysis of this follow-up study of the ZOE-50/70 trials demonstrated that efficacy against herpes zoster remained high. Moreover, the safety profile remained clinically acceptable, suggesting that the clinical benefit of the RZV in ≥50-year-olds is sustained up to 10 years.