PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15989601

Valaciclovir: development, clinical utility and potential.

Abstract

Valaciclovir (Valtrex, Zelitrex), the L-valine ester of aciclovir, increases aciclovir bioavailability by 3- to 5-fold over that achievable with oral aciclovir. It addresses many unmet needs of currently available anti-herpesvirus therapies. Valaciclovir extends the efficacy of aciclovir in the treatment of herpes zoster and genital HSV infections, using less frequent dose regimens but retaining the highly acceptable safety profile established for aciclovir. The potential for valaciclovir in CMV prophylaxis has now been proven, and further refining to identify the optimal dose regimen is ongoing. After oral administration, valaciclovir is rapidly absorbed and extensively converted to aciclovir and L-valine, the essential amino acid. The mode of action and spectrum of antiviral activity of valaciclovir are thus identical to aciclovir. The bioavailability of aciclovir after valaciclovir, characterised from studies in healthy adult volunteers, is similar in a wide range of patient populations, including the elderly, those with advanced HIV disease, patients with impaired liver or renal function, or undergoing bone marrow transplantation. No clinically significant drug interactions with valaciclovir have so far been identified. Dosage reductions in clinical use of valaciclovir are only necessary when renal function is severely impaired. In controlled clinical trials in herpes zoster, valaciclovir (1000 mg three times daily) is superior to aciclovir in speeding the resolution of zoster-associated pain and post-herpetic neuralgia. It is as effective as aciclovir in hastening rash healing. In patients with ophthalmic zoster, no differences were evident between valaciclovir and aciclovir treatment on zoster-associated pain or the occurrence of ocular complications. The safety profiles of valaciclovir, aciclovir and placebo were not different in this study programme. In a series of controlled, randomised trials of valaciclovir, aciclovir and placebo for the acute treatment of genital HSV infections in approximately 3000 patients, twice daily valaciclovir was proven as effective as the standard 5 times daily aciclovir regimen in resolving the clinical signs and symptoms of lesional disease. Early patient-initiated valaciclovir therapy (500 mg twice daily) of recurrent genital herpes episodes was shown significantly to increase the chance of prevention of vesicular or ulcerative lesions, a valuable clinical advantage not prospectively proven for aciclovir. When used for periods of up to one year, valaciclovir (500 mg once daily) effectively suppresses genital herpes recurrences. Long-term studies of valaciclovir for HSV suppression, evaluating doses of up to 1000 mg daily in approximately 3000 patients, about 25% of whom were HIV seropositive (CD+ > 100 cells/microl), revealed a highly acceptable clinical tolerability profile for valaciclovir that did not differ from aciclovir or placebo. There were no cases resembling thrombotic microangiopathy in these long-term studies. The aciclovir safety heritage and pharmacokinetic rationale for the development of valaciclovir have been realised through the clinical research programmes in the zoster and HSV indications. Further studies in these and related areas, including CMV prophylaxis, are in progress and aim to expand further the clinical potential of valaciclovir in the future.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R Patel. 1997. Valaciclovir: development, clinical utility and potential.. https://doi.org/10.1517/13543784.6.2.173

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗