Combination Therapy with Oseltamivir and Favipiravir Delays Mortality but Does Not Prevent Oseltamivir Resistance in Immunodeficient Mice Infected with Pandemic A(H1N1) Influenza Virus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immunosuppressed individuals can shed influenza virus for prolonged periods of time, leading to the frequent emergence of antiviral resistance. We evaluated the benefits of oseltamivir and favipiravir combination therapy compared to single antiviral agents and monitored the emergence of drug-resistant variants in a pharmacologically immunosuppressed mouse model infected with the A(H1N1) pandemic influenza virus. C57BL/6 mice were immunosuppressed with cyclophosphamide and infected with a lethal dose of pandemic influenza A(H1N1) virus. Forty-eight hours post-infection, mice were treated with oseltamivir (20 mg/kg), favipiravir (20 or 50 mg/kg) or both agents BID for 5 or 10 days. Body weight losses, survival rates, lung viral titers, cytokine levels and emergence of resistant viruses were evaluated. Treatment of immunosuppressed mice with high (50 mg/kg) but not low (20 mg/kg) doses of favipiravir in combination with oseltamivir (20 mg/kg) significantly delayed mortality and reduced lung viral titers compared to treatment with a single drug regimen with oseltamivir but did not prevent the emergence of oseltamivir-resistant H275Y neuraminidase variants. Combination therapy with oseltamivir and favipiravir should be considered for evaluation in clinical trials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".