4.7 Article

Intramuscularly administered neuraminidase inhibitor peramivir is effective against lethal H5N1 influenza virus in mice

期刊

ANTIVIRAL RESEARCH
卷 80, 期 2, 页码 150-157

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2008.05.012

关键词

Peramivir; Neuraminidase inhibitor; H5N1 influenza virus; Antibody; Parenteral administration

资金

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [HHSN266200700005C]
  2. BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., USA
  3. American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities (ALSAC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The replication efficiency and multi-organ dissemination of some influenza A (H5N1) viruses requires a rapid re-evaluation of the available antiviral strategies. We assessed five regimens of the neuraminidase (NA) inhibitor peramivir in mice inoculated with H5N1 virus. The regimens differed by: (1) frequency of administration on first day (once vs twice); (2) duration of administration (1 day vs 8 days); (3) route of administration (intramuscular [IM] injection alone or followed by oral administration). In all regimens, BALB/c mice were administered 30 mg/kg peramivir IM 1 h after lethal challenge with 5 MLD50 of A/Vietnam/1203/04 (H5N1) influenza virus. When given only on the day of inoculation, a single IM influenza injection produced a 33% survival rate, which increased to 55% with two injections. Eight-day regimens significantly increased survival; two IM injections followed by seven daily IM injections was the most effective regimen (100% survival; inhibition of replication in lungs and brain). When this 8-day regimen began at 24 In after inoculation, 78% of mice survived; 56% survived when treatment began at 48 hours. Anti-HA antibody titer differed with the peramivir regimen and corresponded to the severity of disease. Overall, our results demonstrate that IM administration of peramivir is effective in promoting the survival of mice infected with systemically replicating H5N1 virus. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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