-
Anales de Pediatria May 2019Influenza is a generally a benign disease, but occasionally it can cause serious complications. There is controversy about the benefits of antiviral treatment. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Influenza is a generally a benign disease, but occasionally it can cause serious complications. There is controversy about the benefits of antiviral treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To provide some recommendations on the treatment with oseltamivir in paediatric patients with influenza, based on the best data available and valid in our environment.
METHODS
The Respiratory Infections Group of the Spanish Society of Paediatric Infectious Diseases carried out a review of the literature. The findings were analysed using the GRADE methodology, and recommendations were made.
RESULTS
The systematic use of diagnostic tests for influenza in the outpatient setting, or in the emergency room, in immunocompetent patients with a compatible clinical picture is not recommended. If the aim is to prevent serious events, the use of antivirals is not recommended for the vast majority of healthy and asthmatic patients with influenza or suspected seasonal flu. The systematic use of oseltamivir in patients admitted to hospital with influenza is not recommended. Oseltamivir treatment is recommended in any patients with influenza and pneumonia or severe illness, and critically ill patients, especially during the first 48hours of illness. The treatment of patients with risk factors is recommended, considering their underlying disease. Influenza vaccination, together with basic isolation measures, continue to be the main tool in the prevention of influenza.
CONCLUSION
In some situations, there are sufficient data to issue clear recommendations. In other situations, the data are incomplete, and only allows weak recommendations.
Topics: Adolescent; Age Factors; Antiviral Agents; Child; Critical Illness; Humans; Influenza, Human; Oseltamivir; Risk Factors; Time Factors
PubMed: 30797703
DOI: 10.1016/j.anpedi.2019.01.009 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2014Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are stockpiled and recommended by public health agencies for treating and preventing seasonal and pandemic influenza. They are used... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are stockpiled and recommended by public health agencies for treating and preventing seasonal and pandemic influenza. They are used clinically worldwide.
OBJECTIVES
To describe the potential benefits and harms of NIs for influenza in all age groups by reviewing all clinical study reports of published and unpublished randomised, placebo-controlled trials and regulatory comments.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched trial registries, electronic databases (to 22 July 2013) and regulatory archives, and corresponded with manufacturers to identify all trials. We also requested clinical study reports. We focused on the primary data sources of manufacturers but we checked that there were no published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from non-manufacturer sources by running electronic searches in the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Embase.com, PubMed (not MEDLINE), the Database of Reviews of Effects, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Economic Evaluations Database.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, placebo-controlled trials on adults and children with confirmed or suspected exposure to naturally occurring influenza.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted clinical study reports and assessed risk of bias using purpose-built instruments. We analysed the effects of zanamivir and oseltamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms, influenza outcomes, complications, hospitalisations and adverse events in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. All trials were sponsored by the manufacturers.
MAIN RESULTS
We obtained 107 clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), GlaxoSmithKline and Roche. We accessed comments by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), EMA and Japanese regulator. We included 53 trials in Stage 1 (a judgement of appropriate study design) and 46 in Stage 2 (formal analysis), including 20 oseltamivir (9623 participants) and 26 zanamivir trials (14,628 participants). Inadequate reporting put most of the zanamivir studies and half of the oseltamivir studies at a high risk of selection bias. There were inadequate measures in place to protect 11 studies of oseltamivir from performance bias due to non-identical presentation of placebo. Attrition bias was high across the oseltamivir studies and there was also evidence of selective reporting for both the zanamivir and oseltamivir studies. The placebo interventions in both sets of trials may have contained active substances. Time to first symptom alleviation. For the treatment of adults, oseltamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms by 16.8 hours (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.4 to 25.1 hours, P < 0.0001). This represents a reduction in the time to first alleviation of symptoms from 7 to 6.3 days. There was no effect in asthmatic children, but in otherwise healthy children there was (reduction by a mean difference of 29 hours, 95% CI 12 to 47 hours, P = 0.001). Zanamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults by 0.60 days (95% CI 0.39 to 0.81 days, P < 0.00001), equating to a reduction in the mean duration of symptoms from 6.6 to 6.0 days. The effect in children was not significant. In subgroup analysis we found no evidence of a difference in treatment effect for zanamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults in the influenza-infected and non-influenza-infected subgroups (P = 0.53). Hospitalisations. Treatment of adults with oseltamivir had no significant effect on hospitalisations: risk difference (RD) 0.15% (95% CI -0.78 to 0.91). There was also no significant effect in children or in prophylaxis. Zanamivir hospitalisation data were unreported. Serious influenza complications or those leading to study withdrawal. In adult treatment trials, oseltamivir did not significantly reduce those complications classified as serious or those which led to study withdrawal (RD 0.07%, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.44), nor in child treatment trials; neither did zanamivir in the treatment of adults or in prophylaxis. There were insufficient events to compare this outcome for oseltamivir in prophylaxis or zanamivir in the treatment of children. Pneumonia. Oseltamivir significantly reduced self reported, investigator-mediated, unverified pneumonia (RD 1.00%, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.49); number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 100 (95% CI 67 to 451) in the treated population. The effect was not significant in the five trials that used a more detailed diagnostic form for pneumonia. There were no definitions of pneumonia (or other complications) in any trial. No oseltamivir treatment studies reported effects on radiologically confirmed pneumonia. There was no significant effect on unverified pneumonia in children. There was no significant effect of zanamivir on either self reported or radiologically confirmed pneumonia. In prophylaxis, zanamivir significantly reduced the risk of self reported, investigator-mediated, unverified pneumonia in adults (RD 0.32%, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.41); NNTB = 311 (95% CI 244 to 1086), but not oseltamivir. Bronchitis, sinusitis and otitis media. Zanamivir significantly reduced the risk of bronchitis in adult treatment trials (RD 1.80%, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.80); NNTB = 56 (36 to 155), but not oseltamivir. Neither NI significantly reduced the risk of otitis media and sinusitis in both adults and children. Harms of treatment. Oseltamivir in the treatment of adults increased the risk of nausea (RD 3.66%, 95% CI 0.90 to 7.39); number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) = 28 (95% CI 14 to 112) and vomiting (RD 4.56%, 95% CI 2.39 to 7.58); NNTH = 22 (14 to 42). The proportion of participants with four-fold increases in antibody titre was significantly lower in the treated group compared to the control group (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.97, I(2) statistic = 0%) (5% absolute difference between arms). Oseltamivir significantly decreased the risk of diarrhoea (RD 2.33%, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.81); NNTB = 43 (95% CI 27 to 709) and cardiac events (RD 0.68%, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.0); NNTB = 148 (101 to 2509) compared to placebo during the on-treatment period. There was a dose-response effect on psychiatric events in the two oseltamivir "pivotal" treatment trials, WV15670 and WV15671, at 150 mg (standard dose) and 300 mg daily (high dose) (P = 0.038). In the treatment of children, oseltamivir induced vomiting (RD 5.34%, 95% CI 1.75 to 10.29); NNTH = 19 (95% CI 10 to 57). There was a significantly lower proportion of children on oseltamivir with a four-fold increase in antibodies (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00, I(2) = 0%). Prophylaxis. In prophylaxis trials, oseltamivir and zanamivir reduced the risk of symptomatic influenza in individuals (oseltamivir: RD 3.05% (95% CI 1.83 to 3.88); NNTB = 33 (26 to 55); zanamivir: RD 1.98% (95% CI 0.98 to 2.54); NNTB = 51 (40 to 103)) and in households (oseltamivir: RD 13.6% (95% CI 9.52 to 15.47); NNTB = 7 (6 to 11); zanamivir: RD 14.84% (95% CI 12.18 to 16.55); NNTB = 7 (7 to 9)). There was no significant effect on asymptomatic influenza (oseltamivir: RR 1.14 (95% CI 0.39 to 3.33); zanamivir: RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.24)). Non-influenza, influenza-like illness could not be assessed due to data not being fully reported. In oseltamivir prophylaxis studies, psychiatric adverse events were increased in the combined on- and off-treatment periods (RD 1.06%, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.76); NNTH = 94 (95% CI 36 to 1538) in the study treatment population. Oseltamivir increased the risk of headaches whilst on treatment (RD 3.15%, 95% CI 0.88 to 5.78); NNTH = 32 (95% CI 18 to 115), renal events whilst on treatment (RD 0.67%, 95% CI -2.93 to 0.01); NNTH = 150 (NNTH 35 to NNTB > 1000) and nausea whilst on treatment (RD 4.15%, 95% CI 0.86 to 9.51); NNTH = 25 (95% CI 11 to 116).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Oseltamivir and zanamivir have small, non-specific effects on reducing the time to alleviation of influenza symptoms in adults, but not in asthmatic children. Using either drug as prophylaxis reduces the risk of developing symptomatic influenza. Treatment trials with oseltamivir or zanamivir do not settle the question of whether the complications of influenza (such as pneumonia) are reduced, because of a lack of diagnostic definitions. The use of oseltamivir increases the risk of adverse effects, such as nausea, vomiting, psychiatric effects and renal events in adults and vomiting in children. The lower bioavailability may explain the lower toxicity of zanamivir compared to oseltamivir. The balance between benefits and harms should be considered when making decisions about use of both NIs for either the prophylaxis or treatment of influenza. The influenza virus-specific mechanism of action proposed by the producers does not fit the clinical evidence.
Topics: Adult; Antiviral Agents; Child; Drug Evaluation; Enzyme Inhibitors; Europe; Health Status; Humans; Influenza, Human; Japan; Legislation, Drug; Neuraminidase; Oseltamivir; Pneumonia; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; United Kingdom; United States; Zanamivir
PubMed: 24718923
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008965.pub4 -
JAMA Pediatrics Nov 2022Oseltamivir is recommended for all children hospitalized with influenza, despite limited evidence supporting its use in the inpatient setting.
IMPORTANCE
Oseltamivir is recommended for all children hospitalized with influenza, despite limited evidence supporting its use in the inpatient setting.
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether early oseltamivir use is associated with improved outcomes in children hospitalized with influenza.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This multicenter retrospective study included 55 799 children younger than 18 years who were hospitalized with influenza from October 1, 2007, to March 31, 2020, in 36 tertiary care pediatric hospitals who participate in the Pediatric Health Information System database. Data were analyzed from January 2021 to March 2022.
EXPOSURES
Early oseltamivir treatment, defined as use of oseltamivir on hospital day 0 or 1.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS) in calendar days. Secondary outcomes included 7-day hospital readmission, late (hospital day 2 or later) intensive care unit (ICU) transfer, and a composite outcome of in-hospital death or use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) based on propensity scoring was used to address confounding by indication. Mixed-effects models were used to compare outcomes between children who did and did not receive early oseltamivir treatment. Outcomes were also compared within high-risk subgroups based on age, presence of a complex chronic condition, early critical illness, and history of asthma.
RESULTS
The analysis included 55 799 encounters from 36 hospitals. The median (IQR) age of the cohort was 3.61 years (1.03-8.27); 56% were male, and 44% were female. A total of 33 207 patients (59.5%) received early oseltamivir. In propensity score-weighted models, we found that children treated with early oseltamivir had shorter LOS (median 3 vs 4 days; IPTW model ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.52-0.53) and lower odds of all-cause 7-day hospital readmission (3.5% vs 4.8%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.77), late ICU transfer (2.4% vs 5.5%; aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.37-0.46), and the composite outcome of death or ECMO use (0.9% vs 1.4%; aOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.54-0.73).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Early use of oseltamivir in hospitalized children was associated with shorter hospital stay and lower odds of 7-day readmission, ICU transfer, ECMO use, and death. These findings support the current recommendations for oseltamivir use in children hospitalized with influenza.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Child; Child, Preschool; Oseltamivir; Influenza, Human; Child, Hospitalized; Retrospective Studies; Hospital Mortality; Antiviral Agents; Length of Stay; Hospitalization
PubMed: 36121673
DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.3261 -
JAMA Internal Medicine Jan 2024Despite widespread use, summary evidence from prior meta-analyses has contradictory conclusions regarding whether oseltamivir decreases the risk of hospitalization when... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Despite widespread use, summary evidence from prior meta-analyses has contradictory conclusions regarding whether oseltamivir decreases the risk of hospitalization when given to outpatients. Several large investigator-initiated randomized clinical trials have not yet been meta-analyzed.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy and safety of oseltamivir in preventing hospitalization among influenza-infected adult and adolescent outpatients.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Europe PubMed Central, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry were searched from inception to January 4, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Included studies were randomized clinical trials comparing oseltamivir vs placebo or nonactive controls in outpatients with confirmed influenza infection.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines were followed. Two independent reviewers (R.H. and É.B.C.) extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. Each effect size was pooled using a restricted maximum likelihood random effects model. The quality of evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) framework.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Hospitalization was pooled as risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) estimates with 95% CIs.
RESULTS
Of 2352 studies identified, 15 were included. The intention-to-treat infected (ITTi) population was comprised of 6166 individuals with 54.7% prescribed oseltamivir. Across study populations, 53.9% (5610 of 10 471) were female and the mean age was 45.3 (14.5) years. Overall, oseltamivir was not associated with reduced risk of hospitalization within the ITTi population (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.29; RD, -0.17%; 95% CI, -0.23% to 0.48%). Oseltamivir was also not associated with reduced hospitalization in older populations (mean age ≥65 years: RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.21 to 4.90) or in patients considered at greater risk of hospitalization (RR, 0.65; 0.33 to 1.28). Within the safety population, oseltamivir was associated with increased nausea (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.82) and vomiting (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.28 to 2.63) but not serious adverse events (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.46 to1.08).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis among influenza-infected outpatients, oseltamivir was not associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization but was associated with increased gastrointestinal adverse events. To justify continued use for this purpose, an adequately powered trial in a suitably high-risk population is justified.
Topics: Adult; Adolescent; Humans; Female; Aged; Middle Aged; Male; Oseltamivir; Influenza, Human; Outpatients; Hospitalization; Europe
PubMed: 37306992
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.0699 -
FEBS Open Bio Jun 2022Influenza A and B viruses are among the most prominent human respiratory pathogens. About 3-5 million severe cases of influenza are associated with 300 000-650 000... (Review)
Review
Influenza A and B viruses are among the most prominent human respiratory pathogens. About 3-5 million severe cases of influenza are associated with 300 000-650 000 deaths per year globally. Antivirals effective at reducing morbidity and mortality are part of the first line of defense against influenza. FDA-approved antiviral drugs currently include adamantanes (rimantadine and amantadine), neuraminidase inhibitors (NAI; peramivir, zanamivir, and oseltamivir), and the PA endonuclease inhibitor (baloxavir). Mutations associated with antiviral resistance are common and highlight the need for further improvement and development of novel anti-influenza drugs. A summary is provided for the current knowledge of the approved influenza antivirals and antivirals strategies under evaluation in clinical trials. Preclinical evaluations of novel compounds effective against influenza in different animal models are also discussed.
Topics: Animals; Antiviral Agents; Humans; Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype; Influenza, Human; Models, Animal; Oseltamivir
PubMed: 35451200
DOI: 10.1002/2211-5463.13416 -
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry Oct 2022Sialidases, or neuraminidases, are enzymes that catalyze the hydrolysis of sialic acid (Sia)-containing molecules, mostly removal of the terminal Sia (desialylation). By... (Review)
Review
Sialidases, or neuraminidases, are enzymes that catalyze the hydrolysis of sialic acid (Sia)-containing molecules, mostly removal of the terminal Sia (desialylation). By desialylation, sialidase can modulate the functionality of the target compound and is thus often involved in biological pathways. Inhibition of sialidases with inhibitors is an important approach for understanding sialidase function and the underlying mechanisms and could serve as a therapeutic approach as well. Transition-state analogues, such as anti-influenza drugs oseltamivir and zanamivir, are major sialidase inhibitors. In addition, difluoro-sialic acids were developed as mechanism-based sialidase inhibitors. Further, fluorinated quinone methide-based suicide substrates were reported. Sialidase product analogue inhibitors were also explored. Finally, natural products have shown competitive inhibiton against viral, bacterial, and human sialidases. This Perspective describes sialidase inhibitors with different mechanisms and their activities and future potential, which include transition-state analogue inhibitors, mechanism-based inhibitors, suicide substrate inhibitors, product analogue inhibitors, and natural product inhibitors.
Topics: Humans; Neuraminidase; Zanamivir; Oseltamivir; N-Acetylneuraminic Acid; Enzyme Inhibitors; Sialic Acids; Antiviral Agents; Biological Products
PubMed: 36252951
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.2c01258 -
Seminars in Perinatology Dec 2014Pregnancy predisposes women to disproportionate morbidity and mortality from influenza infections. This is true for both seasonal epidemics as well as occasional... (Review)
Review
Pregnancy predisposes women to disproportionate morbidity and mortality from influenza infections. This is true for both seasonal epidemics as well as occasional pandemics. Inactivated yearly influenza vaccines are the best available method of disease prevention and are recommended for all pregnant women in any trimester of pregnancy and postpartum. Oseltamivir (Tamiflu(®)) is currently the first-line recommended and most commonly used pharmaceutical agent for influenza prophylaxis and treatment. Oseltamivir has been demonstrated to prevent disease among exposed individuals, as well as to shorten the duration of illness and lessen the likelihood of complications among those infected. The physiologic adaptations of pregnancy may alter the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of this important drug. Updated evidence regarding these potential alterations, current knowledge gaps, and future investigative directions is discussed.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Female; Humans; Influenza, Human; Oseltamivir; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious
PubMed: 25281358
DOI: 10.1053/j.semperi.2014.08.015 -
The American Journal of Managed Care Mar 2022To determine whether baloxavir use is associated with lower health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs for secondary influenza complications post treatment...
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether baloxavir use is associated with lower health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs for secondary influenza complications post treatment compared with oseltamivir.
STUDY DESIGN
Retrospective cohort study.
METHODS
Patients filling a prescription for baloxavir or oseltamivir within 48 hours following an influenza-related outpatient visit were identified in the 2018-2019 influenza season from the US Truven MarketScan Research Databases and propensity matched 1:2 (baloxavir:oseltamivir). Outcomes were assessed 15 and 30 days after antiviral treatment and included all-cause, all respiratory-related, and select respiratory-related (influenza, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or infection) HCRU and costs.
RESULTS
The study included 5080 baloxavir-treated and 10,160 matched oseltamivir-treated patients. All-cause emergency department (ED) visits and inpatient hospitalizations were lower in baloxavir-treated patients, with a statistically significant difference in the percentage hospitalized at 30 days (0.3% vs 0.5%; P = .04). ED visits for all or select respiratory-related conditions were significantly reduced with baloxavir (P < .01 for all comparisons). Mean per-patient cost savings at day 30 for all-cause, all respiratory-related, and select respiratory-related conditions were $79, $50, and $51, respectively, despite slightly higher prescription costs for baloxavir. In high-risk patients (baloxavir: n = 1958; oseltamivir: n = 3949), the incidence of ED visits was significantly lower for all respiratory-related and select respiratory-related conditions (P < .01); cost savings with baloxavir in the high-risk cohort were substantially greater than in the overall cohort.
CONCLUSIONS
Treatment of patients with influenza with single-dose baloxavir was generally associated with lower HCRU and costs post treatment compared with oseltamivir, particularly in high-risk patients.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Dibenzothiepins; Humans; Influenza, Human; Morpholines; Oseltamivir; Pyridones; Retrospective Studies; Triazines
PubMed: 35404552
DOI: 10.37765/ajmc.2022.88786 -
Viruses Nov 2023Influenza can cause respiratory infections, leading to significant morbidity and mortality in humans. While current influenza vaccines offer varying levels of...
Influenza can cause respiratory infections, leading to significant morbidity and mortality in humans. While current influenza vaccines offer varying levels of protection, there remains a pressing need for effective antiviral drugs to supplement vaccine efforts. Currently, the FDA-approved antiviral drugs for influenza include oseltamivir, zanamivir, peramivir, and baloxavir marboxil. These antivirals primarily target the virus, making them vulnerable to drug resistance. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of the neuraminidase inhibitor, oseltamivir, against probenecid, which targets the host cells and is less likely to engender resistance. Our results show that probenecid has superior antiviral efficacy compared to oseltamivir in both in vitro replication assays and in vivo mouse models of influenza infection.
Topics: Humans; Animals; Mice; Oseltamivir; Influenza, Human; Probenecid; Influenza Vaccines; Antiviral Agents; Enzyme Inhibitors; Virus Replication; Neuraminidase; Drug Resistance, Viral
PubMed: 38140606
DOI: 10.3390/v15122366 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Jun 2016The aims of the present study were to compare the pharmacokinetics of oseltamivir and its active antiviral metabolite oseltamivir carboxylate in obese and non-obese...
AIMS
The aims of the present study were to compare the pharmacokinetics of oseltamivir and its active antiviral metabolite oseltamivir carboxylate in obese and non-obese individuals and to determine the effect of obesity on the pharmacokinetic properties of oseltamivir and oseltamivir carboxylate.
METHODS
The population pharmacokinetic properties of oseltamivir and oseltamivir carboxylate were evaluated in 12 obese [body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg m(-2) ) and 12 non-obese (BMI <30 kg m(-2) ) Thai adult volunteers receiving a standard dose of 75 mg and a double dose of 150 mg in a randomized sequence. Concentration-time data were collected and analysed using nonlinear mixed-effects modelling.
RESULTS
The pharmacokinetics of oseltamivir and oseltamivir carboxylate were described simultaneously by first-order absorption, with a one-compartment disposition model for oseltamivir, followed by a metabolism compartment and a one-compartment disposition model for oseltamivir carboxylate. Creatinine clearance was a significant predictor of oseltamivir carboxylate clearance {3.84% increase for each 10 ml min(-1) increase in creatinine clearance [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.178%, 8.02%]}. Obese individuals had an approximately 25% (95% CI 24%, 28%) higher oseltamivir clearance, 20% higher oseltamivir volume of distribution (95% CI 19%, 23%) and 10% higher oseltamivir carboxylate clearance (95% CI 9%, 11%) compared with non-obese individuals. However, these altered pharmacokinetic properties were small and did not change the overall exposure to oseltamivir carboxylate.
CONCLUSIONS
The results confirmed that a dose adjustment for oseltamivir in obese individuals is not necessary on the basis of its pharmacokinetics.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Models, Biological; Obesity; Oseltamivir; Volunteers; Young Adult
PubMed: 26810861
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.12892