Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link

Disclaimer: Early release articles are not considered as final versions. Any changes will be reflected in the online version in the month the article is officially released.

Volume 31, Number 4—April 2025
Research

Antiviral Susceptibility of Influenza A(H5N1) Clade 2.3.2.1c and 2.3.4.4b Viruses from Humans, 2023–2024

On This Page
Material and Methods
Results
Discussion
Suggested Citation
Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Downloads
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
RIS [TXT - 2 KB]
Article Metrics
Metric Details
Related Articles
Neutralizing Antibody Response to Influenza A(H5N1) Virus in Dairy Farm Workers, Michigan, USA
HPAIV H5N1 Virus Stability in Milk and Wastewater
H5N1 Response among Ferrets with H1N1 Immunity
More articles on Influenza
Author affiliation: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA (P.N.Q. Pascua, A. Chesnokov, H.T. Nguyen, H. Di, J.D.L. Cruz, Y. Jang, T.M. Uyeki, C.T. Davis, L.V. Gubareva); ChemDiv, San Diego, California, USA (A.A. Ivashchenko, A.V. Ivachtchenko); Avisa LLC, Hallandale Beach, Florida, USA (A.V. Ivachtchenko); Virology Unit, Institut Pasteur du Cambodge, Phnom Penh, Cambodia (E.A. Karlsson); US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Country Office, Phnom Penh (B. Sar); National Institute of Public Health, Ministry of Health, Phnom Penh (C. Savuth)

Suggested citation for this article

Abstract

During 2023–2024, highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) viruses from clade 2.3.2.1c caused human infections in Cambodia and from clade 2.3.4.4b caused human infections in the Americas. We assessed the susceptibility of those viruses to approved and investigational antiviral drugs. Except for 2 viruses isolated from Cambodia, all viruses were susceptible to M2 ion channel-blockers in cell culture-based assays. In the neuraminidase inhibition assay, all viruses displayed susceptibility to neuraminidase inhibitor antiviral drugs oseltamivir, zanamivir, peramivir, laninamivir, and AV5080. Oseltamivir was ≈4-fold less potent at inhibiting the neuraminidase activity of clade 2.3.4.4b than clade 2.3.2.1c viruses. All viruses were susceptible to polymerase inhibitors baloxavir and tivoxavir and to polymerase basic 2 inhibitor pimodivir with 50% effective concentrations in low nanomolar ranges. Because drug-resistant viruses can emerge spontaneously or by reassortment, close monitoring of antiviral susceptibility of H5N1 viruses collected from animals and humans by using sequence-based analysis supplemented with phenotypic testing is essential.

During 2023–2024, human cases of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A(H5N1) detected in Cambodia were caused by clade 2.3.2.1c viruses and in the United States were caused by clade 2.3.4.4b viruses (1; J. Siegers, unpub. data, https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.11.04.24313747). Except for 2 viruses from early 2023, clade 2.3.2.1c viruses contain several internal gene segments from clade 2.3.4.4b viruses, such as polymerase basic 2 (PB2) and matrix (M). Evidence of reassortment between the clades has been reported in viruses circulating in birds in Cambodia, Loas, and Vietnam (J. Siegers, unpub. data, https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.11.04.24313747).

The intercontinental spread of clade 2.3.4.4b viruses from Eurasia to North America that occurred in late 2021 was followed by a spread to Central and South America, causing devastating outbreaks in wild birds, domestic poultry, and spilling over into a variety of mammals (2–4). Those viruses reassorted with other avian influenza A viruses to generate various genotypes of HPAI H5N1 viruses (5). Sporadic human cases were reported in Ecuador, Chile, and the United States during 2022–2023 (6–8). In March 2024, dairy cattle in Texas, USA, tested positive for clade 2.3.4.4b HPAI H5N1 virus belonging to genotype B3.13; detections at dairy farms in 14 additional US states followed (9). During March 28–September 30, 2024, a total of 15 viruses of the B3.13 genotype were detected in dairy and poultry farm workers in Texas (n = 1), Michigan (n = 2), Colorado (n = 10), and California (n = 1); an additional HPAI H5N1 virus was detected in a patient from Missouri who reportedly had no known animal exposure (Appendix 1 Table 1) (10–13).

The pandemic potential posed by HPAI H5N1 viruses necessitates close monitoring of their spread and evolution. Antigenic and antiviral testing are integral components of virologic surveillance and generate data that are used for biological risk assessment and decision-making regarding vaccines and therapeutics (14,15). Influenza antiviral drugs, prescribed as therapeutic or postexposure prophylactic agents, are needed to control influenza infections, especially when vaccines against novel influenza A virus are not available (16). However, resistance to antiviral drugs can emerge because of spontaneous mutation, gene reassortment, or selective pressure from exposure to the drugs and is a public health concern.

Many countries have approved 3 classes of antiviral drugs to control influenza. The oldest are the M2 ion-channel protein blockers (M2 blockers) of influenza A viruses, amantadine and rimantadine. Substitutions at 5 residues within the M2 protein transmembrane domain confer cross-resistance to M2 blockers (17). Resistance to M2 blockers were also detected in some avian and swine viruses, including H5N1 (18,19).

Neuraminidase (NA) inhibitors are active against influenza A and B viruses, which require NA enzyme activity for efficient replication and transmission. This class includes oral oseltamivir, inhaled zanamivir and laninamivir (approved only in Japan), and intravenous peramivir. Among the NA inhibitors, oseltamivir is the most widely used influenza antiviral (16,20). Of note, most seasonal influenza A(H1N1) viruses circulating globally among persons during 2008–2009 were resistant to oseltamivir because of the resistance-conferring mutation NA-H275Y (N1 numbering). Oseltamivir-resistant influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 (pH1N1) viruses with this mutation were also detected in circulation and associated with clusters in several countries (21). In addition, NA-H275Y was sporadically detected in various other N1 subtype viruses, including H5N1 (22). Other NA mutations are associated with reduced inhibition by NA inhibitors, but their effect on drug phenotype is unknown. In recent years, detection of influenza viruses with such NA mutations, including NA-H275Y, were reported at low frequencies (<2%) (23). The emergence of viruses with resistance-conferring mutations and the limited antiviral options spurred the search for novel compounds with improved antiviral activity or a different mechanism of action. Accordingly, an investigational oral NA inhibitor, AV5080, was shown to potently inhibit NA activity of a diverse set of influenza viruses, including those with NA-H275Y (24).

Baloxavir targets the cap-dependent endonuclease activity of the polymerase acidic (PA) protein and exhibits broad activity against influenza viruses of types A, B, C, and D (25). Viruses with reduced susceptibility to baloxavir are rare, but several PA mutations are implicated in treatment-emergent resistance, PA-I38T being the most common (23). PA inhibitors under investigation include tivoxavir (AV5116) (26). The cap binding activity of the PB2 protein is also an attractive target (27). The PB2 inhibitor pimodivir was shown to be active against influenza A viruses, including HPAI H5N1 viruses (18).

Antiviral susceptibility assessment of clade 2.3.4.4b HPAI H5N1 viruses collected from birds and mammals during 2021–2023 (22,28) revealed sporadic detection of drug-resistant viruses, some with novel mutations. A similar assessment of clade 2.3.2.1c viruses has not yet been reported. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive antiviral susceptibility assessment of H5N1 viruses from clades 2.3.2.1c and 2.3.4.4b isolated from humans in Cambodia, Chile, and the United States during 2023–2024. Analyses in this study have been approved by the Cambodian National Ethics Committee for Health Research (ethics approval no. 365NECHR/2024).

Material and Methods

Antiviral Compounds

We dissolved the M2 blockers, amantadine hydrochloride (Sigma-Aldrich, https://www.sigmaaldrich.com), rimantadine (Roche, https://www.roche.com), and the NA inhibitors oseltamivir carboxylate, zanamivir, peramivir, and laninamivir (BioSynth, https://www.biosynth.com) individually in sterile distilled water. We dissolved the PA inhibitor baloxavir acid (MedChem Express, https://www.medchemexpress.com) in DMSO (Sigma-Aldrich). We purchased the investigational drug pimodivir from MedChem Express; tivoxavir was provided by ChemDiv (https://www.chemdiv.com).

Viruses

We propagated HPAI H5N1 viruses in 10-day old embryonated chicken eggs or in MDCK cells (American Type Culture Collection, https://www.atcc.org). We used the clade 2.3.4.4b HPAI H5N1 virus A/bald eagle/Florida/W22–134-OP/2022 (eagle/FL/22) and representative seasonal influenza (A and B) viruses as controls in phenotypic assays. We conducted handling and experiments with HPAI H5N1 viruses in an enhanced Biosafety Level 3 containment facility.

Next-Generation Sequencing Analysis

We generated sequences by using a next generation-sequencing (NGS) platform (Illumina, https://www.illumina.com), analyzed by the iterative refinement meta-assembler (29) and aligned with sequences available from GISAID (https://www.gisaid.org) by using MAFFT version 7 (30). We deposited all sequences into GISAID.

Virus Yield Reduction

We used a conventional yield reduction assay (31) to assess virus susceptibility to M2 blockers. We inoculated confluent monolayers of MDCK-SIAT1 cells with virus, and then added growth medium containing antiviral and incubated at 37°C. After 16 or 21 hours postinfection (hpi), we collected supernatants, determined virus titers, and expressed them as 50% tissue-culture infectious dose (TCID50) per millilieter, according to the Spearman-Kaerber method.

Neuraminidase Inhibition Assay

We assessed susceptibility to NA inhibitors by using the NA-Fluor Influenza Neuraminidase Assay Kit (Applied Biosystems, https://www.thermofisher.com) (32). We preincubated normalized virus preparations with the NA inhibitors for 45 minutes, followed by a 1-hour incubation with 2-(4-(methylumbelliferyl)-a-D-N-acetylneuraminic acid (Sigma-Aldrich) substrate. We measured fluorescence by using Cytation 7 (Agilent, https://www.agilent.com). We calculated the drug concentration required to inhibit 50% NA activity (IC50) on the basis of >3 independent tests.

Influenza Replication Inhibition NA-Based Assay to Assess Susceptibility to M2 Blockers and Polymerase Inhibitors

We assessed susceptibility to M2 blockers and polymerase inhibitors by using the cell culture-based influenza replication inhibition NA-based assay (IRINA), as previously described (33). We added MDCK-SIAT1 cell suspension, serially diluted antiviral, and normalized virus preparations to 96-well microplates (Agilent). We then incubated the microplates at 37°C for 7 hours. We aspirated the supernatant and replaced it with 2-(4-(methylumbelliferyl)-a-D-N-acetylneuraminic acid substrate. After 1 hour of incubation at 37°C, the reaction was stopped, and we determined virus replication by measuring fluorescence by using Cytation 7 (Agilent). We determined the 50% effective concentration (EC50) values by using nonlinear regression (33).

Results

Susceptibility to M2-Blockers

During January 2023–September 2024, a total of 16 clade 2.3.2.1c HPAI H5N1 viruses in Cambodia and 15 clade 2.3.4.4b HPAI H5N1 viruses in the United States were detected in humans (Appendix 1 Table 1). By using available data, sequence analysis of those viruses and that of a 2.3.4.4b virus from a patient in Chile (Chile/23) revealed that they lacked molecular markers of resistance to M2 blockers, except for the 2 clade 2.3.2.1c viruses collected in early 2023 that shared M2-S31N (Tables 1, 2).

To confirm the sequence-based assessment of drug phenotype, we tested a subset of those viruses by virus yield reduction assay. We included seasonal pH1N1 viruses with and without M2-S31N and an HPAI H5N1 virus, eagle/FL/22, as controls. At 21 hpi, yields of H5N1 viruses were 8.8–10.1 log10 TCID50/mL, higher than for seasonal viruses, 5.8–7.6 log10 TCID50/mL (Table 1). The criterion for sensitivity to M2 blockers was a reduction in virus yield at 1 µg/mL drug concentration, the highest physiologically achievable concentration (34). In the presence of amantadine and rimantadine, the drug-sensitive pH1N1 virus showed ≈3.0 log reduction, whereas its counterpart with M2-S31N demonstrated a <0.2 log reduction. A/Cambodia/NPH230032/2023 with M2-S31N also showed only <0.2 log reduction. A/Texas/37/2024 and A/Cambodia/KHS230332/2023 showed 1.1–1.8 log reductions consistent with a drug-sensitive phenotype. On the basis of those results, viruses in this study were identified as resistant when reduction in the viral yield was <1 log at drug concentrations below 1 µg/ml. Although Chile/23 and eagle/FL/22 shared the same M2 protein sequence, eagle/FL/22 showed greater reductions (≈2.3 log vs. 0.5–0.7 log) (Table 1). Testing was repeated by using a shorter replication time, 16 hpi, in which all viruses produced lower yields (Table 1). Except Chile/23, all tested viruses demonstrated from 2.0–5.1 log reductions in the presence of amantadine and from 2.2–5.5 log reductions in the presence of rimantadine, confirming their drug-sensitivity. At 16 hpi, Chile/23 demonstrated from 1.2–1.6 log reductions, which met the definition of a drug-sensitive phenotype as defined in this study (Table 1).

We next used IRINA, in which virus replication is limited to a single cycle, to assess M2 blocker susceptibility (Table 2). At 7 hpi, the 3 viruses with M2-S31N showed EC50s >1,000 ng/mL, whereas other viruses had EC50s ranging from 14 to 95 ng/mL for amantadine and 4 to 17 ng/mL for rimantadine. Chile/23 demonstrated elevated EC50s, which were ≈3-fold higher than for eagle/FL/22 (Table 2). Close inspection of NGS data for the Chile/23 isolate that we used for testing failed to show any virus subpopulations harboring M2 blocker resistance-conferring mutations. However, there was evidence of virus subpopulations with substitutions in HA, M1, PA, or PB1 proteins (Appendix 1 Table 2). Two substitutions (M1-A227S and PA-V91M) were present in both the clinical specimen and the isolate, whereas the other 2 substitutions (HA-N182S and PB1-K269Q) were not. The Chile/23 isolate was then used for virus purification by limiting dilution in cell culture. The resulting virus clone only retained the subpopulation in PB1 (10.4%), but 2 minor subpopulations in HA (6.7%) and PB2 (8.5%) were also detected (Appendix 1 Table 2). In IRINA, the clone showed EC50s of 27 for amantadine and 7 ng/mL for rimantadine, consistent with a drug-sensitive phenotype (Table 2).

Overall, testing outcomes of the yield reduction assay at 16 hpi and IRINA agreed. In both assays, rimantadine was somewhat more active than amantadine at inhibiting replication of viruses lacking M2-S31N.

Susceptibility to NA Inhibitors

The NAs of the 2 H5N1 clades differ by >50 amino acids, including a 20 amino acid deletion in the NA stalk of clade 2.3.2.1c (Appendix 1 Table 3). Sequence analysis did not identify molecular markers associated with reduced inhibition by NA inhibitors (23). The 2 early 2023 clade 2.3.2.1c viruses shared NA-V149I, a substitution near the NA active site that does not affect the susceptibility of clade 2.3.4.4b to NA inhibitors (22). However, the substitution’s effect on clade 2.3.2.1c viruses is unknown.

We tested all available isolates of H5N1 viruses in NA inhibition (NI) assay, including those with the NA-V149I substitution. NA inhibitors efficiently inhibited the NA enzyme activity of all viruses with IC50 values in the subnanomolar to low nanomolar ranges, supporting viruses’ susceptibility to oseltamivir, zanamivir, peramivir, laninamivir, and AV5080 (Table 3). Oseltamivir was least active at inhibiting the NA activity of viruses from both clades (0.74–3.99 nM IC50s), whereas AV5080 was most active (0.03–0.08 nM IC50s). We observed no differences in IC50s between the 2 clades, except for oseltamivir, which was ≈4-fold less active at inhibiting the NA activity of clade 2.3.4.4b viruses compared with clade 2.3.2.1c (3.61 vs. 0.96 nM median IC50) (Table 3).

Susceptibility to Polymerase Inhibitors

Assessing susceptibility to PA inhibitors by sequence analysis revealed substantial amino acid differences within the endonuclease domain between the 2 H5N1 clades (Appendix 2 Table 1). Virus sequences did not contain molecular markers of known association with reduced baloxavir susceptibility (23). In IRINA, the EC50s of baloxavir (0.40–1.06 nM) and tivoxavir (0.43–1.09 nM) were low and similar to those of seasonal influenza A viruses (Table 4). Those results indicate that the clade 2.3.2.1c and 2.3.4.4b viruses tested were susceptible to both PA inhibitors with a similar susceptibility.

None of the study viruses contained reported markers of pimodivir resistance (Appendix 2 Table 2) (27,35). Pimodivir effectively inhibited all viruses with EC50s in a subnanomolar range (Table 4). Pimodivir EC50s of the early 2023 clade 2.3.2.1c viruses were ≈6-fold lower compared with other viruses from this clade, which contain several internal genes from clade 2.3.4.4.b viruses. Altogether, those results highlight a potent in vitro antiviral effect by pimodivir against H5N1 viruses from both clades.

Discussion

Our study shows HPAI H5N1 clade 2.3.2.1c and clade 2.3.4.4b viruses isolated from sporadic human cases in Cambodia, Chile, and the United States during 2023–2024 are susceptible to approved NA inhibitors and the PA inhibitor baloxavir. The viruses were also susceptible to M2 blockers, except for the 2 nonreassortant viruses isolated in Cambodia during 2023. Viruses from both clades were susceptible to investigational antivirals AV5080, which targets viral segment NA; tivoxavir, which targets viral segment PA; and pimodivir, which targets viral segment PB2.

Nearly all seasonal influenza viruses that have circulated since 2010 were resistant to M2 blockers. In addition, M2 blocker resistance was seen in certain groups of swine and avian influenza A viruses (18,19), which greatly reduced the appeal of this inexpensive class of oral antivirals. However, they may remain useful in certain instances, such as controlling zoonotic outbreaks caused by drug-sensitive viruses, especially when administered in combination with other antivirals (36). Combined therapy may produce a synergistic antiviral effect leading to substantial reduction of viral titers thus lowering the risk for resistance emergence and speeding up recovery (16).

In yield reduction assay, the testing outcome for Chile/23 was inconclusive because the criterion for susceptibility to M2 blockers was met at 16hpi, but not at 21hpi. Some of the HPAI H5N1 viruses tested in this study had mammalian-adaptive molecular signatures in their PB2 protein (i.e., Q591K, E627K, M631L, D701N) (Appendix 2 Table 2) (37,38). Regardless, all H5N1 viruses grew to high yields in a mammalian cell line. To address concerns over the effect of different virus replication kinetics on testing outcomes, we used the new assay, IRINA, for the first time to assess M2 blocker susceptibility as it is based on a single-cycle replication (33). Apart from providing improved throughput and turnaround time compared with the traditional assays, IRINA enabled more definitive identification of drug-resistant viruses whose EC50s were >1,000 ng/mL. Drug-sensitive viruses showed EC50s <100 ng/mL for amantadine and <20 ng/mL for rimantadine. Compared with eagle/FL/22, Chile/23 was less susceptible to M2 blockers in both yield reduction assay and IRINA, despite having the same M2 sequence. On the other hand, the Chile/23 clone, whose genomic sequence showed only minor virus subpopulations, had the same EC50s as eagle/FL/22 in IRINA. Additional studies are underway to investigate molecular mechanisms underlying the decreased susceptibility of the Chile/23 isolate.

The NA sequences of clades 2.3.2.1c and 2.3.4.4b differ substantially in the stalk and the head region (Appendix 1 Table 3). Regardless of virus or NA inhibitor, IC50s fell within subnanomolar ranges, and thus, all H5N1 viruses in this study were deemed susceptible to this class of antiviral drugs. However, we found that oseltamivir was ≈4-fold more active at inhibiting the NA activity of clade 2.3.2.1c than clade 2.3.4.4b viruses (Table 3). Differences in oseltamivir IC50s among various clades of H5N1 viruses have been previously reported (39–42). Binding of oseltamivir within the NA active site involves a side chain reorientation at residue E277, and differences at residue 253 and other neighboring amino acids can lead to steric effects that elevate oseltamivir IC50s (43). It is also known that temperature, substrate, buffer pH, and other experimental conditions can affect NI testing outcomes (32). Taking those into consideration, uniform temperature was maintained during NI testing by incubating each microplate in a single file. Of interest, clade 2.3.2.1a (from Bangladesh) and 2.3.4.4b (from the United States) viruses were recently reported to show the same oseltamivir IC50s despite substantial difference in NA sequences (up to 31 aa) (27). Directly comparing results generated by different laboratories is challenging because it requires including the same reference viruses for comparison. Therefore, we used Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reference virus panels (https://www.internationalreagentresource.org), which are available to laboratories conducting antiviral surveillance.

The EC50s for the PA inhibitors baloxavir and tivoxavir, an investigational drug undergoing phase 1 clinical trials (25), were in a low nanomolar range for H5N1 viruses. We also demonstrated that viruses from both clades were susceptible to the PB2 inhibitor pimodivir. Two clade 2.3.2.1c viruses collected in early 2023 displayed the highest pimodivir susceptibility. Those viruses share a PB2-V356I substitution, which is flanked by residues R355 and H357 involved in pimodivir binding (26). Therefore, our study provides evidence for the value of PB2 inhibitors as additional options to control influenza A virus infections (26), pending drug structure refinement and further investigation.

Our study limitations included laboratory data interpretation. For M2 blockers, resistant viruses are identified on the basis of their diminished replication in cell culture at a specific drug concentration of 1,000 ng/mL (34). Conversely, cell culture-based assays cannot be used to predict susceptibility of viruses to NA inhibitors. Moreover, there are no concentration-based criteria to identify NA inhibitor-resistant viruses by using a functional NI assay. Instead, antiviral testing in surveillance identifies outliers (viruses with IC50s above the subtype or lineage-specific baseline) and reports them as exhibiting reduced (10–100-fold) or highly reduced (>100-fold) inhibition of NA enzyme activity. However, this approach is challenging when reporting results for zoonotic viruses that are more genetically diverse than seasonal viruses. For surveillance purposes, antiviral susceptibility testing should be conducted if viral genomic changes are detected, whether by evolution, selection, or host adaptation, because that may affect the ability of antivirals to interfere with the function of the targeted viral proteins. By using an in vitro approach, we demonstrated there are no such changes in clade 2.3.2.1c and 2.3.4.4b H5N1 viruses isolated from humans in 2023 and 2024 in this study, except the early 2023 viruses from Cambodia. However, laboratory results should be interpreted with caution because variables such as virus virulence, time of treatment initiation, patient immune status, and other factors can affect the outcome of antiviral treatment. For example, no correlation was observed between IC50s and oseltamivir treatment outcomes in mice infected with HPAI H5N1 viruses (39).

In recent years, monitoring systems have sporadically detected oseltamivir- and baloxavir-resistant H5N1 viruses in wild birds, including in clade 2.3.4.4b (22,25,44). Drug-resistant influenza viruses may emerge following treatment, especially in young children and immunocompromised patients (45). Although drug-resistant influenza viruses often show impaired replicative fitness, the concern is their ability to gain a selective advantage because of reassortment and continuous evolution. Hence, new antiviral drugs, including those with novel mechanisms of action, and their combinations, would be a welcome addition to the current antiinfluenza arsenal. Compared with monotherapy, combination treatment potently inhibits H5N1 virus replication and improves survival rates in mice (36,46,47). Data are needed on higher oseltamivir dosing and combination antiviral treatment of patients infected with recent H5N1 viruses to inform treatment recommendations.

In conclusion, although the clinical translation of laboratory findings remains to be seen, our data do not change current recommendations to initiate oseltamivir treatment as soon as possible for patients with confirmed or suspected H5N1 (48), and postexposure prophylaxis of close contacts of H5N1 cases (49). However, higher antiviral dosing and combination antiviral treatment (e.g., oseltamivir and baloxavir) should be considered, in particular for patients with H5N1 who are hospitalized or immunocompromised.

Dr. Pascua is an associate service fellow in the Influenza Division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC. His research interests are antiviral susceptibility and molecular mechanisms of antiviral resistance of seasonal and emerging novel influenza viruses.

Top

Acknowledgments

We thank the US Department of Agriculture, US public health laboratories, and National Influenza Centers in Chile and Cambodia for the submission of influenza A(H5N1) viruses to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for characterization. We thank our colleagues from the Virology, Surveillance, and Diagnosis Branch, Influenza Division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, and other members of the Influenza Division at CDC for their contributions to this study. We thank Rodrigo Fasce for promptly sharing the specimen from Chile, Chloe Champion for technical support, and Trent Bullock for editorial assistance.

This study was supported by the CDC Influenza Division.

A.A.I. and A.V.I. are the founders of ChemDiv, managing members of Avisa, LLC. A.V.I. is the author of patent application US 8895613.

Top

References

  1. Garg  S, Reinhart  K, Couture  A, Kniss  K, Davis  CT, Kirby  MK, et al. Highly pathogenic avian influenza a(h5n1) virus infections in humans. N Engl J Med. 2025;392:843–54. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bevins  SN, Shriner  SA, Cumbee  JC Jr, Dilione  KE, Douglass  KE, Ellis  JW, et al. Intercontinental movement of highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) clade 2.3.4.4 virus to the United States, 2021. Emerg Infect Dis. 2022;28:1006–11. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Elsmo  EJ, Wünschmann  A, Beckmen  KB, Broughton-Neiswanger  LE, Buckles  EL, Ellis  J, et al. Highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) virus clade 2.3.4.4b infections in wild terrestrial mammals, United States, 2022. Emerg Infect Dis. 2023;29:2451–60. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Leguia  M, Garcia-Glaessner  A, Muñoz-Saavedra  B, Juarez  D, Barrera  P, Calvo-Mac  C, et al. Highly pathogenic avian influenza A (H5N1) in marine mammals and seabirds in Peru. Nat Commun. 2023;14:5489. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Youk  S, Torchetti  MK, Lantz  K, Lenoch  JB, Killian  ML, Leyson  C, et al. H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza clade 2.3.4.4b in wild and domestic birds: Introductions into the United States and reassortments, December 2021-April 2022. Virology. 2023;587:109860. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruno  A, Alfaro-Núñez  A, de Mora  D, Armas  R, Olmedo  M, Garcés  J, et al. First case of human infection with highly pathogenic H5 avian Influenza A virus in South America: A new zoonotic pandemic threat for 2023? J Travel Med. 2023;30:taad032. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza antiviral drug resistance. 2022 [cited 2024 Sep 30]. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/treatment/antiviralresistance.html
  8. Castillo  A, Fasce  R, Parra  B, Andrade  W, Covarrubias  P, Hueche  A, et al. The first case of human infection with H5N1 avian Influenza A virus in Chile. J Travel Med. 2023;30:taad083. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Burrough  ER, Magstadt  DR, Petersen  B, Timmermans  SJ, Gauger  PC, Zhang  J, et al. Highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) clade 2.3.4.4b virus infection in domestic dairy cattle and cats, United States, 2024. Emerg Infect Dis. 2024;30:1335–43. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Uyeki  TM, Milton  S, Abdul Hamid  C, Reinoso Webb  C, Presley  SM, Shetty  V, et al. Highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) virus infection in a dairy farm worker. N Engl J Med. 2024;390:2028–9. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Morse  J, Coyle  J, Mikesell  L, Stoddard  B, Eckel  S, Weinberg  M, et al. Influenza A(H5N1) virus infection in two dairy farm workers in Michigan. N Engl J Med. 2024;391:963–4. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Drehoff  CC, White  EB, Frutos  AM, Stringer  G, Burakoff  A, Comstock  N, et al.; H5N1 Field Investigation Team. H5N1 Field Investigation Team. Cluster of influenza A(H5) cases associated with poultry exposure at two facilities—Colorado, July 2024. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2024;73:734–9. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC confirms new human cases of H5 bird flu in California. 2024 Oct 3 [cited 2024 Oct 3]. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/s1003-birdflu-case-california.html
  14. Cox  NJ, Trock  SC, Burke  SA. Pandemic preparedness and the influenza risk assessment tool (IRAT). Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2014;385:119–36. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Yamaji  R, Zhang  W, Kamata  A, Adlhoch  C, Swayne  DE, Pereyaslov  D, et al. Pandemic risk characterisation of zoonotic influenza A viruses using the Tool for Influenza Pandemic Risk Assessment (TIPRA). Lancet Microbe. 2025;6:100973. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones  JC, Yen  HL, Adams  P, Armstrong  K, Govorkova  EA. Influenza antivirals and their role in pandemic preparedness. Antiviral Res. 2023;210:105499. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Oh  DY, Hurt  AC. A review of the antiviral susceptibility of human and avian influenza viruses over the last decade. Scientifica (Cairo). 2014;2014:430629. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Baranovich  T, Bahl  J, Marathe  BM, Culhane  M, Stigger-Rosser  E, Darnell  D, et al. Influenza A viruses of swine circulating in the United States during 2009-2014 are susceptible to neuraminidase inhibitors but show lineage-dependent resistance to adamantanes. Antiviral Res. 2015;117:10–9. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Cheung  CL, Rayner  JM, Smith  GJ, Wang  P, Naipospos  TS, Zhang  J, et al. Distribution of amantadine-resistant H5N1 avian influenza variants in Asia. J Infect Dis. 2006;193:1626–9. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza antiviral drug resistance. 2022 [cited 2025 Jan 3]. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/treatment/antiviralresistance.html
  21. Hurt  AC. The epidemiology and spread of drug resistant human influenza viruses. Curr Opin Virol. 2014;8:22–9. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Nguyen  HT, Chesnokov  A, De La Cruz  J, Pascua  PNQ, Mishin  VP, Jang  Y, et al. Antiviral susceptibility of clade 2.3.4.4b highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) viruses isolated from birds and mammals in the United States, 2022. Antiviral Res. 2023;217:105679. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Govorkova  EA, Takashita  E, Daniels  RS, Fujisaki  S, Presser  LD, Patel  MC, et al. Global update on the susceptibilities of human influenza viruses to neuraminidase inhibitors and the cap-dependent endonuclease inhibitor baloxavir, 2018-2020. Antiviral Res. 2022;200:105281. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Ivachtchenko  AV, Ivanenkov  YA, Mitkin  OD, Yamanushkin  PM, Bichko  VV, Shevkun  NA, et al. Novel oral anti-influenza drug candidate AV5080. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69:1892–902. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Mishin  VP, Patel  MC, Chesnokov  A, De La Cruz  J, Nguyen  HT, Lollis  L, et al. Susceptibility of influenza A, B, C, and D viruses to baloxavir. Emerg Infect Dis. 2019;25:1969–72. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Ivashchenko  AA, Mitkin  OD, Jones  JC, Nikitin  AV, Koryakova  AG, Karapetian  RN, et al. Synthesis, inhibitory activity and oral dosing formulation of AV5124, the structural analogue of influenza virus endonuclease inhibitor baloxavir. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2021;76:1010–8. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Byrn  RA, Jones  SM, Bennett  HB, Bral  C, Clark  MP, Jacobs  MD, et al. Preclinical activity of VX-787, a first-in-class, orally bioavailable inhibitor of the influenza virus polymerase PB2 subunit. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59:1569–82. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Andreev  K, Jones  JC, Seiler  P, Kandeil  A, Turner  JCM, Barman  S, et al. Antiviral susceptibility of highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) viruses circulating globally in 2022–2023. J Infect Dis. 2024;229:1830–5. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Shepard  SS, Meno  S, Bahl  J, Wilson  MM, Barnes  J, Neuhaus  E. Viral deep sequencing needs an adaptive approach: IRMA, the iterative refinement meta-assembler. BMC Genomics. 2016;17:708. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Katoh  K, Standley  DM. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30:772–80. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Gubareva  LV, Trujillo  AA, Okomo-Adhiambo  M, Mishin  VP, Deyde  VM, Sleeman  K, et al. Comprehensive assessment of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus drug susceptibility in vitro. Antivir Ther. 2010;15:1151–9. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Okomo-Adhiambo  M, Mishin  VP, Sleeman  K, Saguar  E, Guevara  H, Reisdorf  E, et al. Standardizing the influenza neuraminidase inhibition assay among United States public health laboratories conducting virological surveillance. Antiviral Res. 2016;128:28–35. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Patel  MC, Flanigan  D, Feng  C, Chesnokov  A, Nguyen  HT, Elal  AA, et al. An optimized cell-based assay to assess influenza virus replication by measuring neuraminidase activity and its applications for virological surveillance. Antiviral Res. 2022;208:105457. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Hayden  FG, Belshe  RB, Clover  RD, Hay  AJ, Oakes  MG, Soo  W. Emergence and apparent transmission of rimantadine-resistant influenza A virus in families. N Engl J Med. 1989;321:1696–702. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Patel  MC, Chesnokov  A, Jones  J, Mishin  VP, De La Cruz  JA, Nguyen  HT, et al. Susceptibility of widely diverse influenza a viruses to PB2 polymerase inhibitor pimodivir. Antiviral Res. 2021;188:105035. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Ilyushina  NA, Hoffmann  E, Salomon  R, Webster  RG, Govorkova  EA. Amantadine-oseltamivir combination therapy for H5N1 influenza virus infection in mice. Antivir Ther. 2007;12:363–70. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Suttie  A, Deng  YM, Greenhill  AR, Dussart  P, Horwood  PF, Karlsson  EA. Inventory of molecular markers affecting biological characteristics of avian influenza A viruses. Virus Genes. 2019;55:739–68. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhang  X, Xu  G, Wang  C, Jiang  M, Gao  W, Wang  M, et al. Enhanced pathogenicity and neurotropism of mouse-adapted H10N7 influenza virus are mediated by novel PB2 and NA mutations. J Gen Virol. 2017;98:1185–95. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Govorkova  EA, Ilyushina  NA, McClaren  JL, Naipospos  TS, Douangngeun  B, Webster  RG. Susceptibility of highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza viruses to the neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir differs in vitro and in a mouse model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53:3088–96. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. McKimm-Breschkin  JL, Selleck  PW, Usman  TB, Johnson  MA. Reduced sensitivity of influenza A (H5N1) to oseltamivir. Emerg Infect Dis. 2007;13:1354–7. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. McKimm-Breschkin  JL, Barrett  S, Wong  FYK, Pudjiatmoko , Azhar  M, Selleck  P, et al. Identification of Indonesian clade 2.1 highly pathogenic influenza A(H5N1) viruses with N294S and S246N neuraminidase substitutions which further reduce oseltamivir susceptibility. Antiviral Res. 2018;153:95–100. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Rameix-Welti  MA, Agou  F, Buchy  P, Mardy  S, Aubin  JT, Véron  M, et al. Natural variation can significantly alter the sensitivity of influenza A (H5N1) viruses to oseltamivir. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006;50:3809–15. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Collins  PJ, Haire  LF, Lin  YP, Liu  J, Russell  RJ, Walker  PA, et al. Crystal structures of oseltamivir-resistant influenza virus neuraminidase mutants. Nature. 2008;453:1258–61. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Andreev  K, Jones  JC, Seiler  P, Kandeil  A, Webby  RJ, Govorkova  EA. Genotypic and phenotypic susceptibility of emerging avian influenza A viruses to neuraminidase and cap-dependent endonuclease inhibitors. Antiviral Res. 2024;229:105959. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. van der Vries  E, Ison  MG. Antiviral resistance in influenza viruses: clinical and epidemiological aspects. In: Mayers D, Sobel J, Ouellette M, Kaye K, Marchaim D, editors. Antimicrobial Drug Resistance. Springer Cham; 2017. p. 1165–83.
  46. Marathe  BM, Wong  SS, Vogel  P, Garcia-Alcalde  F, Webster  RG, Webby  RJ, et al. Combinations of oseltamivir and T-705 extend the treatment window for highly pathogenic influenza A(H5N1) virus infection in mice. Sci Rep. 2016;6:26742. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Taniguchi  K, Ando  Y, Kobayashi  M, Toba  S, Nobori  H, Sanaki  T, et al. Characterization of the in vitro and in vivo efficacy of baloxavir marboxil against H5 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus infection. Viruses. 2022;14:111. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2024. Interim guidance on the use of antiviral medications for treatment of human infections with novel influenza A viruses associated with severe human disease. [cited 2024 Sep 30]. https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/hcp/novel-av-treatment-guidance
  49. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2024. Interim guidance for follow-up of close contacts of persons infected with novel influenza A viruses associated with severe human disease or with potential to cause severe human disease, and use of antiviral medications for post-exposure prophylaxis [cited 2024 Sep 30]. https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/php/novel-av-chemoprophylaxis-guidance

Top

Figures
Tables

Top

Suggested citation for this article: Pascua PNQ, Chesnokov A, Nguyen HT, Di H, Cruz JDL Jang Y, et al. Antiviral susceptibility of influenza A(H5N1) clade 2.3.2.1c and 2.3.4.4b viruses from humans, 2023–2024. Emerg Infect Dis. 2025 Apr [date cited]. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid3104.241820

DOI: 10.3201/eid3104.241820

1These first authors contributed equally to this article.

Table of Contents – Volume 31, Number 4—April 2025

EID Search Options
presentation_01 Advanced Article Search – Search articles by author and/or keyword.
presentation_01 Articles by Country Search – Search articles by the topic country.
presentation_01 Article Type Search – Search articles by article type and issue.

Top

Comments

Please use the form below to submit correspondence to the authors or contact them at the following address:

Larisa V. Gubareva, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd NE, Mailstop H17-5, Atlanta, GA 30329-4018, USA

Send To

10000 character(s) remaining.

Top

Page created: February 20, 2025
Page updated: March 07, 2025
Page reviewed: March 07, 2025
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external