Early administration of oral oseltamivir increases the benefits of influenza treatment

Our objective was to evaluate the benefit of early treatment of influenza illness using oral oseltamivir. This open-label, multicentre international study investigated the relationship between the interval from illness onset to first dose (time-to-treatment) and illness duration in the intent-to-treat infected population using accelerated failure time (AFT) modelling. A total of 1426 patients (12-70 years) presenting within 48 h of the onset of influenza symptoms were treated with oseltamivir 75 mg twice a day for 5 days during the 1999-2000 influenza season; 958 (67%) had laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection. Earlier intervention was associated with shorter illness duration (P < 0.0001). Initiation of therapy within the first 12 h after fever onset reduced the total median illness duration by 74.6 h (3.1 days; 41%) more than intervention at 48 h. Intermediate interventions reduced the illness proportionately compared with 48 h. In addition, the earlier administration of oseltamivir further reduced the duration of fever, severity of symptoms and the times to return to baseline activity and health scores. Oseltamivir was well tolerated. The most common adverse events were nausea and vomiting, which were transient and generally occurred only with first dosing. When oseltamivir was taken with food, the tolerability was enhanced. The overall discontinuation rate was low (1.8%). In conclusion, the IMPACT study demonstrated that earlier initiation of oral oseltamivir therapy increased its therapeutic effects, which were seen at every time point of intervention and were progressive. Thus, early presentation, diagnosis and treatment of patients with influenza maximized the benefits of oseltamivir therap

Managing Influenza in Primary Care. A praticl Guide to clinical Diagnosis

Influenza remains a significant cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality. With the availability of new effective antivirals for the treatment of influenza, early diagnosis of the disease will become increasingly important for effective disease management. Although investigators are generally in broad agreement about the symptoms of influenza, there are currently no agreed guidelines for the clinical diagnosis of influenza during annual outbreaks. This paper outlines the recommendations of a Working Party (comprising virologists and family practitioners) who met to construct criteria that could be used by primary healthcare professionals to aid early clinical diagnosis of influenza, i.e. before the development of any complications. A virologically confirmable diagnosis of influenza is likely when an otherwise healthy adult presents, during a known local influenza outbreak, with rapid onset of the symptom complex of fever, feverishness or chills plus myalgia, cough or malaise. Guidelines for the diagnosis of influenza in children, in patients with chronic diseases and in the elderly require further refinement

Twenty-four hour and early morning blood pressure control of olmesartan vs. ramipril in elderly hypertensive patients: pooled individual data analysis of two randomized, double-blind, parallel-group studies.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil and ramipril on 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in elderly hypertensive patients by pooled data analysis of two studies with identical designs (one Italian, one European). METHODS: After a 2-week placebo wash-out 1453 elderly hypertensive patients (65-89 years; sitting office DBP 90-109 mmHg and/or sitting office SBP 140-179 mmHg) were randomized to a 12-week double-blind treatment with olmesartan medoxomil 10 mg or ramipril 2.5 mg once-daily, up-titrated (20 and 40 mg olmesartan medoxomil; 5 and 10 mg ramipril) after 2 and 6 weeks in patients without normalized office BP. 24-h ABP was recorded at randomization and after 12 weeks. RESULTS: In 715 patients with valid baseline and end-of-treatment recordings baseline-adjusted 24-h SBP and DBP reductions were greater with olmesartan medoxomil (n = 356) than with ramipril (n = 359) [between-treatment differences and 95% confidence interval (CI), SBP: 2.2 (3.8, 0.6), P = 0.006; DBP: 1.3 (2.2, 0.3), P = 0.009]. Olmesartan medoxomil showed larger BP reductions in the last 6 h from the dosing interval and higher smoothness indices than ramipril. Olmesartan medoxomil reduced the SBP morning rise [-2.8 (-4.9, -0.8) mmHg], whereas ramipril did not [+1.5 (-0.6, +3.6) mmHg; P = 0.004 between-treatments]. Five hundred and eighty-two patients with sustained hypertension (office and 24-h ambulatory hypertension) showed the largest antihypertensive effect, with between-treatment differences still in favor of olmesartan medoxomil [SBP: 2.1 (3.9, 0.4), P = 0.019; DBP: 1.2 (2.3, 0.1), P = 0.032]. CONCLUSIONS: Olmesartan medoxomil provides a more effective and sustained 24-h BP control than ramipril in elderly hypertensive patients, particularly in the hours farthest from last intake

Twenty-four hour and early morning blood pressure control of olmesartan vs. ramipril in elderly hypertensive patients: pooled individual data analysis of two randomized, double-blind, parallel-group studies

OBJECTIVE: To assess the antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil and ramipril on 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in elderly hypertensive patients by pooled data analysis of two studies with identical designs (one Italian, one European). METHODS: After a 2-week placebo wash-out 1453 elderly hypertensive patients (65-89 years; sitting office DBP 90-109 mmHg and/or sitting office SBP 140-179 mmHg) were randomized to a 12-week double-blind treatment with olmesartan medoxomil 10 mg or ramipril 2.5 mg once-daily, up-titrated (20 and 40 mg olmesartan medoxomil; 5 and 10 mg ramipril) after 2 and 6 weeks in patients without normalized office BP. 24-h ABP was recorded at randomization and after 12 weeks. RESULTS: In 715 patients with valid baseline and end-of-treatment recordings baseline-adjusted 24-h SBP and DBP reductions were greater with olmesartan medoxomil (n = 356) than with ramipril (n = 359) [between-treatment differences and 95% confidence interval (CI), SBP: 2.2 (3.8, 0.6), P = 0.006; DBP: 1.3 (2.2, 0.3), P = 0.009]. Olmesartan medoxomil showed larger BP reductions in the last 6 h from the dosing interval and higher smoothness indices than ramipril. Olmesartan medoxomil reduced the SBP morning rise [-2.8 (-4.9, -0.8) mmHg], whereas ramipril did not [+1.5 (-0.6, +3.6) mmHg; P = 0.004 between-treatments]. Five hundred and eighty-two patients with sustained hypertension (office and 24-h ambulatory hypertension) showed the largest antihypertensive effect, with between-treatment differences still in favor of olmesartan medoxomil [SBP: 2.1 (3.9, 0.4), P = 0.019; DBP: 1.2 (2.3, 0.1), P = 0.032]. CONCLUSIONS: Olmesartan medoxomil provides a more effective and sustained 24-h BP control than ramipril in elderly hypertensive patients, particularly in the hours farthest from last intak