4.7 Article

Sensitivity performed of influenza viruses to zanamivir and oseltamivir: A study on viruses circulating in France prior to the introduction of neuraminidase inhibitors in clinical practice

期刊

ANTIVIRAL RESEARCH
卷 68, 期 1, 页码 43-48

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2005.07.004

关键词

influenza; neuraminidase inhibitors; resistance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Influenza virus neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) were introduced in clinical practice in various parts of the world since 1999 but were only scarcely distributed in France. Prior to the generalization of zanamivir and oseltamivir utilization in our country, we decided to test a large panel of influenza strains to establish the baseline sensitivity of these viruses to anti-neuraminidase drugs, based upon a fluorometric neuraminidase enzymatic test. Our study was performed on clinical samples collected by practitioners of the GROG network (Groupe Regional d'Observation de la Grippe) in the south of France during the 2002-2003 influenza season. Out of 355 isolates tested in the fluorometric neuraminidase activity assay, 267 isolates could be included in inhibition assay against anti-neuraminidase drugs. Differences in IC50 range were found according to the subtype and the anti-neuraminidase drug. Influenza B and A/H1N1 viruses appeared to be more sensitive to zanamivir than to oseltarnivir (mean B IC50 values: 4.19 nM versus 13 nM; mean H1N1 IC50 values: 0.92 nM versus 1.34 nM), while A/H1N2 and A/H3N2 viruses were more sensitive to oseltarnivir than to zanamivir (mean H3N2 IC50 values: 0.67 nM versus 2.28 nM; mean H1N2 IC50 values: 0.9 nM versus 3.09 nM). Out of 128 N2 carrying isolates, 10 isolates had zanamivir or oseltarnivir IC50 values in upper limits 41 compared to their respective data range. Sequencing of the neuraminidase of these outliers N2 highlighted several mutations, but none of them were associated with resistance to neuraminidase inhibitors. (c) 2005 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