4.7 Review

The role of adjuvant immunomodulatory agents for treatment of severe influenza

期刊

ANTIVIRAL RESEARCH
卷 150, 期 -, 页码 202-216

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2018.01.002

关键词

Influenza; Adjunctive therapies; Immunomodulatory agents

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health [HHSN261200800001E]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A severe inflammatory immune response with hypercytokinemia occurs in patients hospitalized with severe influenza, such as avian influenza A(H5N1), A(H7N9), and seasonal A(H1N1)pdm09 virus infections. The role of immunomodulatory therapy is unclear as there have been limited published data based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Passive immunotherapy such as convalescent plasma and hyperimmune globulin have some studies demonstrating benefit when administered as an adjunctive therapy for severe influenza. Triple combination of oseltamivir, clarithromycin, and naproxen for severe influenza has one study supporting its use, and confirmatory studies would be of great interest. Likewise, confirmatory studies of sirolimus without concomitant corticosteroid therapy should be explored as a research priority. Other agents with potential immunomodulating effects, including non -immune intravenous immunoglobulin, N-acetylcysteine, acute use of statins, macrolides, pamidronate, nitazoxanide, chloroquine, antiC5a antibody, interferons, human mesenchymal stromal cells, mycophenolic acid, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors agonists, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents, mesalazine, herbal medicine, and the role of plasmapheresis and hemoperfusion as rescue therapy have supportive preclinical or observational clinical data, and deserve more investigation preferably by RCTs. Systemic corticosteroids administered in high dose may increase the risk of mortality and morbidity in patients with severe influenza and should not be used, while the clinical utility of low dose systemic corticosteroids requires further investigation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据