Antiviral action and mechanisms of rezistance of influenza A neuramindase inhibitors

Rezumat:

Inhibitorii M2 si inhibitorii neuraminidazei (NAIs) reprezinta cele doua clase majore de anitivirale disponibile pentru tratamentul si preventia gripei. Inhibitorii M2 sunt ieftini ca pret, insa ei sunt eficace doar in cazul virusurilor gripale tip A, iar rezistenta se instaleaza rapid. Virusurile gripale A H3N2 si cele pandemice A(H1N1)pdm09 sunt déjà rezistente la inhibitorii M2 asa cum sunt si multe virusuri gripale H5N1. Exista 4 NAI cu licenta in anumite parti ale lumii, precum : zanamivir, oseltamivir, peramivir, si NAI laninamivir cu actiune intarziata.Acest articol reprezinta o trecere inrevista a datelor recente din literature de specialitate asupra rezistentei la NAIs.

Resistance poate fi atat NAI-cat si specifica de subtip datorita diferentei structurale a NAI. Aceasta rezulta in profiluri diferite de rezistenta la medicament de exemplu, mutatia H274Y confera rezistenta la oseltamivir si peramivir, dar nu si la zanamivir, si numai in N1 NAs. Mutatiile la E119, D198, I222, R292, si N294 pot de asemenea sa reduca sensibilitatea la NAI .
Cuvinte cheie: inhibitori ai neuraminidazei (NAI) virusului gripal A, inhibitori M2, rezistenta la zanamivir

Abstract:

The M2 inhibitors and the neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) are two major classes of antivirals available for the treatment and prevention of influenza. The M2 inhibitors are cheap, but they are only effective against influenza A viruses, and resistance arises rapidly. The current influenza A H3N2 and pandemic A (H1N1)pdm09 viruses are already resistant to the M2 inhibitors as are many H5N1 viruses. There are four NAIs licensed in some parts of the world, zanamivir, oseltamivir, peramivir, and a long-acting NAI, laninamivir. This is a review of the recent literature data on resistance to the NAIs.

The resistance can be both NAI- and subtype specific because of differences in their chemistry and subtle differences in NA structures. This results in different drug resistance profiles, for example, the H274Y mutation confers resistance to oseltamivir and peramivir, but not to zanamivir, and only in N1 NAs. Mutations at E119, D198, I222, R292, and N294 can also reduce NAI sensitivity.
Keywords: Influenza neuraminidase inhibitors, M2 inhibitors, zanamivir resistance

Introduction

Research data[1] have confirmed that Influenza viruses have three surface proteins, the hemagglutinin(HA), neuraminidase (NA), and M2 protein. The HA binds to terminal sialic acids on cellular receptors, after which the virus is endocytosed. The low pH (5Æ5–6Æ0) of the endosome activates the M2 proton channel in the influenza A virus membrane to allow acid to enter the virus, prior to HA-mediated fusion, triggering the release of the virus ribonucleoprotein (RNP). After replication, the NA of progeny virions cleaves sialic acids from the cell receptors and from the HA and NA which are also glycosylated, to release progeny virions from the cell surface and prevent self aggregation. There are two major classes of antivirals licensed for the treatment and prevention of influenza, the M2 inhibitors and the NA inhibitors (NAIs). By blocking the M2 proton channel, the M2 inhibitors prevent release of the virus RNP for migration to the nucleus of the cell.
The NA inhibitors (NAIs) prevent release of newly formed virions from the cell surface.

The M2 inhibitors, amantadine and rimantadine, only act on influenza A viruses. Although influenza B viruses have a BM2 protein which is analogous to the M2 protein in influenza A, this is not sensitive to the M2 inhibitors.

The M2 inhibitors have two potential binding sites on the M2 protein: a high-affinity site in the ion channel pore and a second low-affinity site on the lipid face of the pore.[2]

The two most common mutations V27A and S31N are in the ion channel pore, confirming this as the pharmacologically relevant site.
However, although the M2 inhibitors are cheap and have been around for almost 50 years,[3] their use for the treatment of influenza has been limited, in part because resistant viruses emerge rapidly in treated patients, and in a single passage in tissue culture.[4]

The pandemic A(H1N1)pdm09 virus was already resistant[5], and the majority of seasonal A(H3N2) viruses have been resistant since the mid-2000s, with an increase in oseltamivir-resistant seasonal H1N1 viruses also observed.[6,7] Many of the H5N1 strains circulating in Southeast Asia, especially in Vietnam and Thailand, are also resistant to M2 inhibitors.[8,9] Due to resistance, the usefulness of these drugs is currently limited. This review therefore focuses on the most recently developed NAIs.

Licensed neuraminidase inhibitors

There are two NAIs licensed globally for the treatment and prevention of influenza. Relenza (zanamivir) was the first in this class[10] followed by Tamiflu (oseltamivir).[11] Zanamivir was developed based on two key findings. Firstly, the transition-state analog 2,3-dehydro-2-deoxy-N-acetylneuraminic acid (DANA) was known to be a weak inhibitor of the NA. Secondly, the structure of the sialic acid substrate in complex with the enzyme active site revealed an empty negatively charged pocket in the region of the C4 on the sugar ring.

This suggested that substitution of the C4-OH with a larger basic residue might lead to higher affinity binding.[12] A single substitution of the C4-OH with a 4-guanidino group enhanced binding more than 10 000- fold over DANA . Zanamivir is administered by oral inhalation as it is not absorbed. Oseltamivir was subsequently designed based on knowledge from zanamivir.

While based on DANA, it has a cyclohexene ring with two substitutions compared with DANA. It has a C4 amino group and a bulky hydrophobic pentyl ether side chain in place of the glycerol side chain. It is administered as the prodrug oseltamivir phosphate and converted by hepatic esterases to the active compound oseltamivir carboxylate.

Peramivir has subsequently been developed[13] and is now licensed in Japan and for emergency use in some other countries while undergoing further clinical trials. It is based on DANA, but has a cyclopentane ring and features of both zanamivir and oseltamivir, the C4-guanidino substitution and a hydrophobic side chain, respectively. It is only effective if administered intravenously. A fourth compound, laninamivir (Inavir), based on zanamivir with a 7-OCH3 substitution, is a long-acting NAI[14] and is administered by oral inhalation as a single 40 mg dose of the laninamivir octanoate prodrug. Laninamivir has been licensed in Japan and is undergoing clinical trials in other countries.

The NAIs prevent release and spread of progeny virions by blocking NA function. The sensitivity of the NA enzyme to the NAIs is evaluated in an in vitro enzyme inhibition assay, using either a fluorescent[15] or chemiluminescent substrate.

The IC50 is defined as the concentration inhibiting 50% of the enzyme activity compared with the uninhibited control. Decreased sensitivity due to a mutation in the NA is identified by an elevated IC50.[16,17,18] Sensitivities vary in different laboratories due to subtle differences in assay methodology, but in general influenza A(H3N2) viruses are slightly more sensitive to oseltamivir than N1 subtype viruses. Conversely, N1 subtype viruses are slightly more sensitive to zanamivir than to N2 subtype viruses. IC50s are generally <5 nM for both drugs for N1 and N2 subtypes.Influenza B viruses have slightly higher IC50s for zanamivir,but they are still <10 nM.[17,19]. In contrast, influenza B viruses have 10–20-fold higher IC50s for oseltamivir compared with influenza A viruses [17,19].

Oseltamivir is taken orally twice daily, with a dose of 75 mg for adults. The levels of oseltamivir in plasma are estimated to be in the range from 400 to 1200 nM[20,21] and in saliva to be <5% of plasma levels.[22] Thus, levels in the upper respiratory tract may be significantly lower than 100 nM. This may only be 20–50 times the IC50s for influenza A strains and 2–5-fold higher than the IC50s for wild-type influenza B strains.

Zanamivir dosing is 10 mg inhaled twice daily, delivering high levels to the upper respiratory tract, estimated to be up to 10 000 nM.[23,24] This would be up to 5000-fold higher than the average IC50s for influenza A viruses.

Emergence of resistance

In early studies, resistance to oseltamivir emerged both in challenge studies and in naturally acquired infections, with resistant virus isolated from 1 to 4% of oseltamivir-treated adult patients.[25,26]

Due to differences in the chemical structures of the inhibitors, many of the mutations do not confer reduced sensitivity to all the NAIs. Additionally, despite high conservation of residues in the active site, there are mutations which confer resistance in only one subtype, for example,H274Y (H275Y in N1 numbering) confers oseltamivir resistance only in N1, E119V, and R292K confer high-level oseltamivir resistance only in N2.

In early studies, resistant viruses could be isolated from 4 to 8% of oseltamivir-treated pediatric patients, possibly due to prolonged virus shedding in children.[27,28] However, three post-release studies of oseltamivir-treated children have demonstrated much higher frequencies of resistant viruses. The first two studies were conducted in Japan, where weight-based dosing of 2 mg ⁄ kg of oseltamivir is used for children. In one study, in which the viruses were primarily H1N1, oseltamivir-resistant H274Y viruses were isolated from 7 of 43 children (16%).[29]

The H274Y mutation decreases sensitivity to both oseltamivir and peramivir, but not to zanamivir. In the second study, predominantly of H3N2 viruses, resistant viruses with E119V (2), R292K (6), or N294S (1) mutations were isolated from 9 of 50 children (18%).[30] The first two mutations have only been seen clinically in N2 subtype viruses, with E119V and N294S conferring reduced sensitivity specifically to oseltamivir.
The N294S mutation has also been seen in the N1 subtype (N295S in N1 numbering) conferring a mild reduction in zanamivir sensitivity, but a greater reduction in oseltamivir sensitivity.[31,32]

There were concerns that the weight-based dosing used in Japan delivered suboptimal concentrations of oseltamivir, facilitating selection of resistant viruses. Hence, another trial was carried out in the United Kingdom, in which tiered weight-based dosing of oseltamivir was used.[33].

Despite small numbers of patients, significant resistance was seen. Three of 11 patients (27%) infected with H1N1 viruses shed H274Y-resistant virus and one of [34] patients(3%) infected with H3N2 viruses shed an R292K-resistant virus. None of 19 patients infected with influenza B shed a resistant virus.

Due to concerns over the high level of oseltamivir resistance seen in the Japanese pediatric studies, a 3-year study was carried out in Japan to monitor for the emergence of resistant virus after zanamivir therapy. A total of 273 children were enrolled over three influenza seasons from 2006 to 2009.[34]. All children enrolled were <15 years of age, and were influenza positive by a rapid diagnostic assay and culture positive by throat swab. Samples from pre- and posttreatment were tested for resistant virus by RT-PCR and in enzyme assays of cultured virus.

Three viruses from two subjects infected with H1N1 viruses showed virus with reduced sensitivity prior to treatment. One virus with a N70S mutation in the NA showed a 46-fold increase in IC50 for zanamivir.

Two viruses from one subject had a Q136K NA mutation, which showed a 300-fold increase in IC50 for zanamivir, but this mutation was only detected after culture and not in the primary sample. Hence, despite more patients than the oseltamivir pediatric trials, no emergence of resistance was seen in 273 zanamivir-treated children.

Seasonal H1N1 Early results demonstrated that mutations in the NA which conferred reduced NAI sensitivity also impacted on the function of the NA such that resistant viruses were compromised in their fitness and unlikely to be transmitted.[35,36] However, in late 2007, several seasonal H1N1 viruses with an H274Y mutation were isolated in Norway.

There was a minimal use of oseltamivir in Norway, and none of the patients had a history of drug exposure. Subsequent testing revealed 183 of 272 isolates (67%) bore this mutation. This virus was clearly fit, and transmissible and within weeks resistant viruses were detected in North America, Europe, and Asia.[37,38] The resistant viruses continued to spread to the southern hemisphere,[39] ultimately displacing the sensitive virus. More than 90% of H1N1 isolates were resistant by 2008–2009, with IC50s in the fluorescent assay generally in the 500–1000 nM range.

It appears that permissive mutations had evolved that enabled the NA to tolerate the H274Y mutation, maintaining fitness of the enzyme.[40]. The substitutions include R193G, R221Q, V233M, and D343N (R194G, R222Q, V234M, and D344N in N1 numbering). While H274Y is the primary mutation seen in N1 viruses, a seasonal H1N1 virus with an I222V mutation, conferring reduced susceptibility to oseltamivir,was also detected in surveillance of community isolates from untreated patients.[41].

Pandemic influenza A(H1N1)pdm09The sudden emergence and spread of the swine-derived influenza virus from Mexico led to the displacement of the oseltamivir-resistant seasonal H1N1 virus by the new A(H1N1)pdm09 virus. However, given the awareness of oseltamivir resistance, much closer monitoring has been carried out, by both phenotypic testing by enzyme assay and sequencing.

Conclusions

Resistance to the NAIs can be both drug and virus type or subtype specific. However, while resistance is often defined as greater than a 10-fold change in IC50 compared with the wild type, because some viruses have a higher base line IC50, for example, influenza B and clade 2 H5N1 strains, such viruses may be clinically resistant with only a few fold increase in IC50. It may be more appropriate to define resistance in terms of the IC50 and the drug concentrations delivered to the upper respiratory tract.

There is also an issue of how the IC50 is measured, because values from the chemiluminescent assay are often lower than those from the fluorescent assay, and IC50 kinetics experiments [1].demonstrate how the IC50 can change with incubation times in the NAI assays.

Hence, there is currently no consensus on a definition of resistance, as it can really only be demonstrated by the lack of response to treatment.
Development of new inhibitors with different modes of action should also be a priority.

References:

1.McKimm-Breschkin (2012) Influenza neuraminidase inhibitors: Antiviral action and mechanisms of resistance. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 7(Suppl. 1), 25–36.
2. Rosenberg MR, Casarotto MG. Coexistence of two adamantane binding sites in the influenza A M2 ion channel. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010; 107:13866–13871.
3. Davies WL, Grunert RR, Haff RF et al. Antiviral Activity of 1-Adamantanamine (Amantadine). Science 1964; 144:862–863.
4. Monto AS. Antivirals and influenza: frequency of resistance. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2008; 27:S110–S112.
5. Gubareva LV, Trujillo AA, Okomo-Adhiambo M et al. Comprehensive assessment of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus drug susceptibility in vitro. Antivir Ther 2010; 15:1151–1159.
6. Saito R, Suzuki Y, Li D et al. Increased incidence of adamantaneresistant influenza A(H1N1) and A(H3N2) viruses during the 2006-2007 influenza season in Japan. J Infect Dis 2008; 197:630 632; author reply 632-633
7. Bright RA, Shay DK, Shu B, Cox NJ, Klimov AI. Adamantane resistance among influenza A viruses isolated early during the 2005-2006 influenza season in the United States. JAMA 2006; 295:891–894.
8. Hurt AC, Selleck P, Komadina N et al. Susceptibility of highly pathogenic A(H5N1) avian influenza viruses to the neuraminidase inhibitors and adamantanes. Antiviral Res 2007; 73:228–231.
9. Cheung CL, Rayner JM, Smith GJ et al. Distribution of amantadine-resistant H5N1 avian influenza variants in Asia. J Infect Dis 2006; 193:1626–1629.
10. Von Itzstein M, Wu WY, Kok GB et al. Rational design of potent sialidase-based inhibitors of influenza virus replication. Nature 1993; 363:418–423.
11. Kim CU, Lew W, Williams MA et al. Influenza neuraminidase inhibitors possessing a novel hydrophobic interaction in the enzyme active site: design, synthesis, and structural analysis of carbocyclic sialic acid analogues with potent anti-influenza activity. J Am Chem Soc 1997; 119:681–690.
12. Varghese JN, McKimm-Breschkin JL, Caldwell JB, Kortt AA, Colman PM. The structure of the complex between influenza virus neuraminidase and sialic acid, the viral receptor. Proteins 1992; 14:327–332.
13. Babu YS, Chand P, Bantia S et al. BCX-1812 (RWJ-270201): discovery of a novel, highly potent, orally active, and selective influenza neuraminidase inhibitor through structure-based drug design. J Med Chem 2000; 43:3482–3486.
14. Koyama K, Takahashi M, Nakai N et al. Pharmacokinetics and disposition of CS-8958, a long-acting prodrug of the novel neuraminidase inhibitor laninamivir in rats. Xenobiotica 2010; 40:207–216.
15. Potier M, Mameli L, Belisle M, Dallaire L, Melancon SB. Fluorometric assay of neuraminidase with a sodium (4-methylumbelliferylalpha-D-N-acetylneuraminate) substrate. Anal Biochem 1979; 94:287–296.
16. Buxton RC, Edwards B, Juo RR et al. Development of a sensitivechemiluminescent neuraminidase assay for the determination of influenza virus susceptibility to zanamivir. Anal Biochem 2000; 280:291–300.
17. McKimm-Breschkin J, Trivedi T, Hampson A et al. Neuraminidase sequence analysis and susceptibilities of influenza virus clinical isolates to zanamivir and oseltamivir. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47:2264–2272.
18. Wetherall NT, Trivedi T, Zeller J et al. Evaluation of neuraminidase enzyme assays using different substrates to measure susceptibility of influenza virus clinical isolates to neuraminidase inhibitors: report of the Neuraminidase Inhibitor Susceptibility Network. J Clin Microbiol 2003; 41:742–750.
19. Tashiro M, McKimm-Breschkin JL, Saito T et al. Surveillance for neuraminidase-inhibitor-resistant influenza viruses in Japan, 1996–2007. Antivir Ther 2009; 14:751–761.
20. Oo C, Barrett J, Hill G et al. Pharmacokinetics and dosage recommendations for an oseltamivir oral suspension for the treatment of influenza in children. Paediatr Drugs 2001; 3:229–236 [erratum appears in Paediatric Drugs 2001;3(4):246]
21. Wattanagoon Y, Stepniewska K, Lindegardh N et al. Pharmacokinetics of high-dose oseltamivir in healthy volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2009; 53:945–952.
22. Cass LM, Efthymiopoulos C, Bye A. Pharmacokinetics of zanamivir after intravenous, oral, inhaled or intranasal administration to healthy volunteers. Clin Pharmacokinet 1999; 36(Suppl 1):1–11.
23. Peng AW, Milleri S, Stein DS. Direct measurement of the antiinfluenza agent zanamivir in the respiratory tract following inhalation. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000; 44:1974–1976.
24. Gubareva LV, Kaiser L, Matrosovich MN, Soo-Hoo Y, Hayden FG. Selection of influenza virus mutants in experimentally infected volunteers treated with oseltamivir. J Infect Dis 2001; 183:523 531.
25. Ives J, Carr J, Roberts NA et al. An oseltamivir treatment-selected influenza A:N2 virus with a R292K mutation in the neuraminidase gene has reduced infectivity in vivo. J Clinical Virol 2000; 18:251–269.
26. Jackson HC, Roberts N, Wange ZM, Belshe R. Management of influenza. Use of new antivirals and resistance in perspective. Clin Drug Invest 2000; 20:447–454.
27. Gubareva LV, Matrosovich MN, Brenner MK, Bethell RC, Webster RG. Evidence for zanamivir resistance in an immunocompromised child infected with influenza B virus. J Infect Dis 1998; 178:1257–1262.
28. Whitley RJ, Hayden FG, Reisinger KS et al. Oral oseltamivir treatment of influenza in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2001; 20:127–133.
29. Ward P, Small I, Smith J, Suter P, Dutkowski R. Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and its potential for use in the event of an influenza pandemic. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005; 55(Suppl 1):i5–i21.
30. Kiso M, Mitamura K, Sakai-Tagawa Y et al. Resistant influenza A viruses in children treated with oseltamivir: descriptive study. Lancet 2004; 364:759–765.
31. Le QM, Kiso M, Someya K et al. Avian flu: isolation of drug-resistant H5N1 virus. Nature 2005; 437:1108.
32. Stephenson I, Democratis J, Lackenby A et al. Neuraminidase Inhibitor Resistance after Oseltamivir Treatment of Acute Influenza A and B in Children. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 48:289–296.
33. Yates PJ, Mehta N, Tisdale M. Resistance analysis of a Phase IV clinical trial of zanamivir treatment in children infected with influenza. Options for the Control of Influenza VII; 3-7 September 2010; Hong Kong, SAR China. 139–159.
34. Herlocher ML, Truscon R, Elias S et al. Influenza viruses resistant to the antiviral drug oseltamivir: transmission studies in ferrets. J Infect Dis 2004; 190:1627–1630.
35. Herlocher ML, Carr J, Ives J et al. Influenza virus carrying an R292K mutation in the neuraminidase gene is not transmitted in ferrets. Antiviral Res 2002; 54:99–111.
36. Dharan NJ, Gubareva LV, Meyer JJ et al. Infections with oseltamivir-resistant influenza A(H1N1) virus in the United States. JAMA 2009; 301:1034–1041.
37. Matsuzaki Y, Mizuta K, Aoki Y et al. A two-year survey of the oseltamivir-resistant influenza A(H1N1) virus in Yamagata, Japan and the clinical effectiveness of oseltamivir and zanamivir. Virol J 2010; 7:53.
38. Meijer A, Lackenby A, Hungnes O et al. Oseltamivir-resistant influenza virus A (H1N1), Europe, 2007-08 season. Emerg Infect Dis 2009; 15:552–560.
39. Hurt AC, Ernest J, Deng YM et al. Emergence and spread of oseltamivir-resistant A(H1N1) influenza viruses in Oceania, South East Asia and South Africa. Antiviral Res 2009; 83:90–93.
40. Bloom JD, Gong LI, Baltimore D. Permissive secondary mutations enable the evolution of influenza oseltamivir resistance. Science 2010; 328:1272–1275.
41. Monto AS, McKimm-Breschkin JL, Macken C et al. Detection of influenza viruses resistant to neuraminidase inhibitors in global surveillance during the first 3 years of their use. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006; 50:2395–2402.

Dr. Emil Ionita

Insitutul Cantacuzino