The use of antiviral drug based on technologically processed antibodies to interferon-γ, CD4 receptor and histamine in the treatment of influenza in adults: results of a multicenter open-label randomized comparative trial with oseltamivir

Objective. A multicenter open-label randomized controlled clinical trial was aimed to compare the efficacy of the study drug (SD) containing technologically processed affinity purified antibodies (high dilutions) to IFN-γ, CD4 receptor and histamine (Ergoferon) with oseltamivir, and evaluate the influence of SD on the antiviral immune response in adults with seasonal influenza. Patients and methods. 184 outpatients aged 18–70 with confirmed influenza of mild/moderate severity were included and randomized into 2 groups (in a 1:1 ratio). Patients received SD (Group 1, n = 92) or oseltamivir (Group 2, n = 92), according to the instructions for medical use for 5 days. As the primary endpoint, the percentage of patients with recovery/improvement was assessed (according to the data of the patient's diary on days 2–7 and according to the clinical examination on days 3 and 7). Additionally, the duration and severity of influenza symptoms, the percentage of patients with virus elimination (according to RT-PCR of nasopharyngeal samples), the percentage of patients with complications, the percentage of patients prescribed antipyretic drugs, the change in concentration of T cell (IL-2, IL-18, IFN-γ) and B cell antigen-specific (IL-4, IL-16) immune response regulators in serum, the leukocyte phenotypes on days 1, 3 and 7 were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using a “Non-Inferiority” design (or no less efficiency/safety). Intention-to-Treat (ITT) analysis data are presented. Results. According to patients’ self-assessment, 53.3% of patients in Group 1 recovered/improved on the 6th day in the morning and 65.2% – in the evening (vs. 53.3% and 57.6% in Group 2, respectively). There were 73.9% recovered/ improved patients on the 7th day in the morning (vs. 67.4% in Group 2). A generalized analysis showed that the treatment results in both groups were comparable (p < 0.0001). According to objective medical examination, 79.3% of patients in the SD group and 74.0% of patients in the Оseltamivir group recovered/improved on the 7th day (p < 0.0001). The antiviral efficacy of SD was not inferior to oseltamivir, which was confirmed by comparable periods of virus elimination, duration and severity of fever and other influenza symptoms. A moderate activating effect of SD on the immune system was evaluated. A significant, compared to oseltamivir, increase in the concentration of IL-2 and IL-4 on the 3rd day of treatment (p = 0.03 and p = 0.04 vs. the oseltamivir group), and IFN-γ on the 3rd and the 7th days (p = 0.012 and p < 0.0001, respectively, vs. the oseltamivir group). No stimulating effect of SD on the growth and differentiation of immune cells was found. Conclusion. SD is effective and safe in the treatment of patients with influenza. The therapeutic and antiviral efficacy of SD is comparable to that of oseltamivir. The antiviral activity of SD affects the interferon system and the concentration of the cytokines IL-2 and IL-4, regulators of the T and B cell immune response. At the same time, there is no significant stimulation of interferon production with further development of hyporeactivity. Key words: influenza, oseltamivir, therapy, cytokines, Еrgoferon