Re: WHO. Recommended use of antivirals (August 21, 2009, edited)
Re: WHO. Recommended use of antivirals (August 21, 2009, edited)
No, that is not the case. Tamiflu resistance in pandemic H1N1 viruses is now a well established FACT. The only uncertainties remain around their frequency, the rate of change in resistance frequency, and geographic distribution of resistant viruses among host populations?
As Niman and others have indicated before, it seems highly likely that current sampling and sequencing strategies are highly biased and thus presently incapable of determining these freuqnecies and rates with any degress of accuracy.
BUT such data are critical if RESPONSIBLE advice is to be provided on antiviral usage. IRRESPONSIBLE advice on antiviral use (ie. in an environment of IGNORANCE) will continue to cost lives.
Does anyone spot a fatal flaw in the WHO advice?
If a clinician cannot reliability predict whether an otherwise healthy infected patient might develop a rapid, life-threatening condition up to 5 or 6 days after the onset of symptoms, and knowing that in order to be of much use, antivirals need to be administered within 48 hours of symptoms, how does this add up?
It doesn't. The entire purpose of administering antivirals post infection is to reduce the risk of a severe outcome. Advising clinicians against treating people with no underlying health conditions is extremely FOOLISH. Pandemic H1N1 IS the only underlying health condition for 20-50% of deaths that have occurred!!
I don't know about you but I get a strong sense that the WHO is very keen to push Tamiflu. You would be forgiven for thinking that the ONLY remaining effective antiviral, Relenza, was very poor second choice.
After reading this rubbish, one would be forgiven for being more confused than ever. Not only does this advice ignore the clinical evidence that itself presents but if it were followed it is clear that many needless fatalities will occur that would otherwise not occur.
Government Purchasers should note that Tamiflu now has a VERY limited life-span that cannot be extended simply by using it less frequently. This is the lesson the WHO should have learned from the rapid, silent, ubuiquitous spread of the H274Y resistance polymorphism in seasonal H1N1 populations in 2007/08...IN THE ABSENCE OF TAMIFLU USE.
Governments wishing otherwwise are living in a fools paradise and will thoroughly deserve the contempt of its population.
Re: WHO. Recommended use of antivirals (August 21, 2009, edited)
WHO. Recommended use of antivirals (August 21, 2009, edited)
Recommended use of antivirals - Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 briefing note 8
21 AUGUST 2009 | GENEVA
WHO is today issuing guidelines for the use of antivirals in the management of patients infected with the H1N1 pandemic virus.
...
The pandemic virus is currently susceptible to both of these drugs (known as neuraminidase inhibitors), but resistant to a second class of antivirals (the M2 inhibitors).
No, that is not the case. Tamiflu resistance in pandemic H1N1 viruses is now a well established FACT. The only uncertainties remain around their frequency, the rate of change in resistance frequency, and geographic distribution of resistant viruses among host populations?
As Niman and others have indicated before, it seems highly likely that current sampling and sequencing strategies are highly biased and thus presently incapable of determining these freuqnecies and rates with any degress of accuracy.
BUT such data are critical if RESPONSIBLE advice is to be provided on antiviral usage. IRRESPONSIBLE advice on antiviral use (ie. in an environment of IGNORANCE) will continue to cost lives.
...
Worldwide, most patients infected with the pandemic virus continue to experience typical influenza symptoms and fully recover within a week, even without any form of medical treatment. Healthy patients with uncomplicated illness need not be treated with antivirals.
...
At the same time, the presence of underlying medical conditions will not reliably predict all or even most cases of severe illness. Worldwide, around 40% of severe cases are now occurring in previously healthy children and adults, usually under the age of 50 years.
...
Some of these patients experience a sudden and very rapid deterioration in their clinical condition, usually on day 5 or 6 following the onset of symptoms.
Studies show that early treatment, preferably within 48 hours after symptom onset, is strongly associated with better clinical outcome.
Does anyone spot a fatal flaw in the WHO advice?
If a clinician cannot reliability predict whether an otherwise healthy infected patient might develop a rapid, life-threatening condition up to 5 or 6 days after the onset of symptoms, and knowing that in order to be of much use, antivirals need to be administered within 48 hours of symptoms, how does this add up?
It doesn't. The entire purpose of administering antivirals post infection is to reduce the risk of a severe outcome. Advising clinicians against treating people with no underlying health conditions is extremely FOOLISH. Pandemic H1N1 IS the only underlying health condition for 20-50% of deaths that have occurred!!
...
Where oseltamivir is unavailable or cannot be used for any reason, zanamivir may be given.
This recommendation applies to all patient groups, including pregnant women, and all age groups, including young children and infants.
...
Clinicians, patients, and those providing home-based care need to be alert to warning signals that indicate progression to a more severe form of illness, and take urgent action, which should include treatment with oseltamivir.
...
In cases of severe or deteriorating illness, clinicians may consider using higher doses of oseltamivir, and for a longer duration, than is normally prescribed.
I don't know about you but I get a strong sense that the WHO is very keen to push Tamiflu. You would be forgiven for thinking that the ONLY remaining effective antiviral, Relenza, was very poor second choice.
After reading this rubbish, one would be forgiven for being more confused than ever. Not only does this advice ignore the clinical evidence that itself presents but if it were followed it is clear that many needless fatalities will occur that would otherwise not occur.
Government Purchasers should note that Tamiflu now has a VERY limited life-span that cannot be extended simply by using it less frequently. This is the lesson the WHO should have learned from the rapid, silent, ubuiquitous spread of the H274Y resistance polymorphism in seasonal H1N1 populations in 2007/08...IN THE ABSENCE OF TAMIFLU USE.
Governments wishing otherwwise are living in a fools paradise and will thoroughly deserve the contempt of its population.