Patent Publication Number: US-2020282030-A1

Title: Methods and Compositions for the Prevention and Treatment of Influenza

Description:
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION 
     This application claims priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119 to U.S. Prov. Appl. Ser. No. 61/253,805, filed Oct. 21, 2009, incorporated by reference in its entirety herein. 
    
    
     TECHNICAL FIELD 
     This disclosure relates to the prevention and treatment of Influenza, including Influenza A Virus Subtype H1N1, with the use of a pharmaceutical composition comprising one or more digestive enzymes. The disclosure further relates to the use of an individual&#39;s fecal chymotrypsin level as an indicator, e.g., biomarker, of whether an individual may be immune-compromised and/or whether an individual may be susceptible to Influenza in general, and in particular to Influenza A Subtype H1N1, and/or as a biomarker of whether an individual will benefit from administration of a described pharmaceutical composition. This disclosure also relates to the use of compositions comprising one or more digestive enzymes as antiseptics, detergents, sanitizers, and disinfectants, e.g., as viricidal and/or viristatic compositions, to treat surfaces and thus to prevent and/or reduce the spread of Influenza infections. 
     BACKGROUND 
     Digestive enzymes are enzymes that can break down one or more components of foods, e.g., carbohydrates, lipids/fats, proteins, cellulose, nucleic acids, etc., and thereby assist in digestion and uptake of nutrients. Certain digestive enzymes are produced by the salivary glands, glands in the stomach, the pancreas, and glands in the small intestines. For example, digestive enzymes produced by the pancreas and secreted into the stomach and small intestine aid in digestion. Other digestive enzymes are produced by plants, fungi, or microorganisms (e.g., papain, bromelain). 
     Digestive enzymes have been administered to mammals to treat enzyme deficiencies caused by conditions affecting the pancreas, such as pancreatitis and pancreatic enzyme deficiency. Pancreatic enzymes administered to humans are commonly of porcine origin. Manufacturers of enzyme preparations have also used enteric coatings for lipase compositions in individuals with cystic fibrosis who require administration of lipases. The preparations for lipase delivery have used enteric coatings containing, for example, hypromellose phthalate, dimethicone 1000, and dibutyl phthalate. 
     Certain methods for coating sensitive bioactive substances such as enzymes have been described, see, e.g., U.S. RE40,059; 6,835,397; 6,797,291; 6,616,954; 6,312,741; 6,251,478; 6,153,236; 6,013,286, and 5,190,775, and Ser. No. 12/386,051, all of which are incorporated by reference in their entirety herein. 
     Influenza A (H1N1) virus is a subtype of influenza virus A and the most common cause of influenza (flu) in humans. Some strains of H1N1 are endemic in humans and cause a small fraction of all influenza-like illness and a large fraction of all seasonal influenza. H1N1 strains caused roughly half of all human flu infections in 2006. Other strains of H1N1 are endemic in pigs (swine influenza) and in birds (avian influenza). 
     In June 2009, WHO declared that flu due to a new strain of swine-origin H1N1 was responsible for the 2009 flu pandemic. This strain is commonly called “swine flu” by the public media. 
     Influenza A virus strains are categorized according to two proteins found on the surface of the virus: hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N). All influenza A viruses contain hemagglutinin and neuraminidase, but the structure of these proteins differ from strain to strain due to rapid genetic mutation in the viral genome. Influenza A virus strains are assigned an H number and an N number based on which forms of these two proteins the strain contains. There are 16 H and 9 N subtypes known in birds, but only H 1, 2 and 3, and N 1 and 2 are commonly found in humans. 
     The Spanish flu, also known as La Gripe Española, or La Pesadilla, was an unusually severe and deadly strain of avian influenza, a viral infectious disease, that killed some 50 million to 100 million people worldwide over about a year in 1918 and 1919. It is thought to be one of the most deadly pandemics in human history. Tt was caused by the H1N1 type of influenza virus. It is postulated that the Spanish flu caused an unusual number of deaths because it may have caused a cytokine storm in the body. The recent epidemic of bird flu, also an Influenza A virus, had a similar effect. The Spanish flu virus infected lung cells, leading to overstimulation of the immune system via release of cytokines into the lung tissue. This leads to extensive leukocyte migration towards the lungs, causing destruction of lung tissue and secretion of liquid into the organ, making it difficult for the patient to breathe. In contrast to other pandemics, which mostly kill the old and the very young, the 1918 pandemic killed unusual numbers of young adults, which may have been due to their healthy immune systems being able to mount a very strong and damaging response to the infection. 
     The more recent Russian flu was a 1977-1978 flu epidemic caused by strain Influenza A/USSR/90/77 (H1N1). It infected mostly children and young adults under 23 because a similar strain was prevalent in 1947-57, causing most adults to have substantial immunity. Some have called it a flu pandemic, but because it only affected the young it is not considered a true pandemic. The virus was included in the 1978-1979 influenza vaccine. 
     In the 2009 flu pandemic, the virus isolated from patients in the United States was found to be made up of genetic elements from four different flu viruses—North American Mexican influenza, North American avian influenza, human influenza, and swine influenza virus typically found in Asia and Europe. This strain appears to be a result of reassortment of human influenza and swine influenza viruses, in all four different strains of subtype H1N1. 
     Preliminary genetic characterization found that the hemagglutinin (HA) gene was similar to that of swine flu viruses present in U.S. pigs since 1999, but the neuraminidase (NA) and matrix protein (M) genes resembled versions present in European swine flu isolates. The six genes from American swine flu are themselves mixtures of swine flu, bird flu, and human flu viruses. While viruses with this genetic makeup had not previously been found to be circulating in humans or pigs, there is no formal national surveillance system to determine what viruses are circulating in pigs in the U.S. 
     On Jun. 11, 2009, the WHO declared an H1N1 pandemic, moving the alert level to phase 6, marking the first global pandemic since 1968. 
     Communicable diseases are currently the leading cause of preventable deaths worldwide, disproportionately affecting resource-poor settings. Pandemic influenzas add to already unacceptable levels of morbidity and mortality from diarrhea, malaria, pneumonia, malnutrition, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, in addition to causing high maternal and neonatal death rates. A few key conditions cause 90% of deaths from communicable diseases: pneumonia (3.9 million deaths per year); diarrhoeal diseases (1.8 million); and malaria (1.2 million). Malnutrition is a significant contributing factor to this mortality. During a pandemic, these illnesses are likely to increase in resource-poor settings where chronically strained health systems would face even higher patient volumes, severe resource constraints, and absenteeism of critical staff. 
     The current prophylactic means for preventing the flu is by Injectable Inactivated Vaccine or Nasal Spray Flu Vaccine. Commonly called the “flu shot”, the Injectable Inactivated Vaccine method employs an inactivated vaccine (containing killed virus) that is given with a needle, usually in the arm. The flu shot is approved for use in people older than 6 months, including healthy people and people with chronic medical conditions. Alternately, the nasal-spray flu vaccine—a vaccine made with live, weakened flu viruses that do not cause the flu (sometimes called LAIV for “live attenuated influenza vaccine” or FluMist®). LAIV (FluMist®) is approved for use in healthy people 2-49 years of age who are not pregnant. 
     Typically each vaccine contains three influenza viruses-one A (H3N2) virus, one A (H1N1) virus, and one B virus. The viruses in the vaccine change each year based on international surveillance and scientists&#39; estimations about which types and strains of viruses will circulate in a given year. About 2 weeks after vaccination, antibodies that provide protection against influenza virus infection develop in the body. 
     Annual influenza vaccination is the most effective method for preventing influenza virus infection and its complications. Influenza vaccine can be administered to any person aged &gt;6 months (who does not have contraindications to vaccination) to reduce the likelihood of becoming ill with influenza or of transmitting influenza to others. Trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) can be used for any person aged &gt;6 months, including those with high-risk conditions. Live, attenuated influenza vaccine (LAW) may be used for healthy, nonpregnant persons aged 2-49 years. If vaccine supply is limited, priority for vaccination is typically assigned to persons in specific groups and of specific ages who are, or are contacts of, persons at higher risk for influenza complications. Because the safety or effectiveness of LAIV has not been established in persons with underlying medical conditions that confer a higher risk for influenza complications, these persons should only be vaccinated with TIV. Influenza viruses undergo frequent antigenic change (i.e., antigenic drift), and persons recommended for vaccination must receive an annual vaccination against the influenza viruses forecasted to be in circulation. Although vaccination coverage has increased in recent years for many groups targeted for routine vaccination, coverage remains low among most of these groups. 
     Antiviral medications are an adjunct to vaccination and are effective when administered as treatment and when used for chemoprophylaxis after an exposure to influenza virus. Oseltamivir and zanamivir are the only antiviral medications recommended for use in the United States. Amantadine or rimantidine should not be used for the treatment or prevention of influenza in the United States until evidence of susceptibility to these antiviral medications has been reestablished among circulating influenza A viruses. 
     The efficacy (i.e., prevention of illness among vaccinated persons in controlled trials) and effectiveness (i.e., prevention of illness in vaccinated populations) of influenza vaccines depend in part on the age and immunocompetence of the vaccine recipient, the degree of similarity between the viruses in the vaccine and those in circulation, and the outcome being measured. Influenza vaccine efficacy and effectiveness studies have used multiple possible outcome measures, including the prevention of medically attended acute respiratory illness (MAARI), prevention of laboratory-confirmed influenza virus illness, prevention of influenza or pneumonia-associated hospitalizations or deaths, or prevention of seroconversion to circulating influenza virus strains. 
     Efficacy or effectiveness for more specific outcomes such as laboratory-confirmed influenza typically will be higher than for less specific outcomes such as MAARI because the causes of MAARI include infections with other pathogens that influenza vaccination would not be expected to prevent. Observational studies that compare less-specific outcomes among vaccinated populations to those among unvaccinated populations are subject to biases that are difficult to control for during analyses. For example, an observational study that determines that influenza vaccination reduces overall mortality might be biased if healthier persons in the study are more likely to be vaccinated. Randomized controlled trials that measure laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections as the outcome are the most persuasive evidence of vaccine efficacy, but such trials cannot be conducted ethically among groups recommended to receive vaccine annually. 
     Both LAIV and TIV contain strains of influenza viruses that are antigenically equivalent to the annually recommended strains: one influenza A (H3N2) virus, one influenza A (H1N1) virus, and one influenza B virus. Each year, one or more virus strains in the vaccine might be changed on the basis of global surveillance for influenza viruses and the emergence and spread of new strains. All three vaccine virus strains were changed for the recommended vaccine for the 2008-09 influenza season, compared with the 2007-08 season. 
     During the preparation of TIV, the vaccine viruses are made noninfectious (i.e., inactivated or killed). Only subvirion and purified surface antigen preparations of T1V (often referred to as “split” and subunit vaccines, respectively) are available in the United States. TIV contains killed viruses and thus cannot cause influenza. LAIV contains live, attenuated viruses that have the potential to cause mild signs or symptoms such as runny nose, nasal congestion, fever or sore throat. LAIV is administered intranasally by sprayer, whereas TIV is administered intramuscularly by injection. LAW is licensed for use among nonpregnant persons aged 2-49 years; safety has not been established in persons with underlying medical conditions that confer a higher risk of influenza complications. TIV is licensed for use among persons aged &gt;6 months, including those who are healthy and those with chronic medical conditions. LAW is generally regarded as more efficacious and effective than TIV. 
     In many populations, there remains a need for alternatives to TIV and LAW, and a need for adjunctive prophylactic or therapeutic regimens for the prevention and/or treatment of Influenza. 
     Pregnant Women and Neonates— 
     Pregnant women have protective levels of anti-influenza antibodies after vaccination. Passive transfer of anti-influenza antibodies that might provide protection from vaccinated women to neonates has been reported. A retrospective, clinic-based study conducted during 1998-2003 documented a non-significant trend towards fewer episodes of MAARI during one influenza season among vaccinated pregnant women compared with unvaccinated pregnant women and substantially fewer episodes of MAARI during the peak influenza season. However, a retrospective study conducted during 1997-2002 that used clinical records data did not indicate a reduction in ILI among vaccinated pregnant women or their infants. In another study conducted during 1995-2001, medical visits for respiratory illness among the infants were not substantially reduced. However, studies of influenza vaccine effectiveness among pregnant women have not included specific outcomes such as laboratory-confirmed influenza in women or their infants. 
     Elderly Population— 
     Adults aged &gt;65 years typically have a diminished immune response to influenza vaccination compared with young healthy adults, suggesting that immunity might be of shorter duration (although still extending through one influenza season). However, a review of the published literature concluded that no clear evidence existed that immunity declined more rapidly in the elderly. Infections among the vaccinated elderly might be associated with an age-related reduction in ability to respond to vaccination rather than reduced duration of immunity. The only randomized controlled trial among community-dwelling persons aged &gt;60 years reported a vaccine efficacy of 58% against influenza respiratory illness during a season when the vaccine strains were considered to be well-matched to circulating strains, but indicated that efficacy was lower among those aged &gt;70 years. Influenza vaccine effectiveness in preventing MAARI among the elderly in nursing homes has been estimated at 20%-40%, and reported outbreaks among well-vaccinated nursing home populations have suggested that vaccination might not have any significant effectiveness when circulating strains are drifted from vaccine strains. In contrast, some studies have indicated that vaccination can be up to 80% effective in preventing influenza-related death. Among elderly persons not living in nursing homes or similar chronic-care facilities, influenza vaccine is 27%-70% effective in preventing hospitalization for pneumonia and influenza. Influenza vaccination reduces the frequency of secondary complications and reduces the risk for influenza-related hospitalization and death among community-dwelling adults aged &gt;65 years with and without high-risk medical conditions (e.g., heart disease and diabetes). However, studies demonstrating large reductions in hospitalizations and deaths among the vaccinated elderly have been conducted using medical record databases and have not measured reductions in laboratory-confirmed influenza illness. These studies have been challenged because of concerns that they have not adequately controlled for differences in the propensity for healthier persons to be more likely than less healthy persons to receive vaccination. 
     HIV Compromised Individuals— 
     TIV produces adequate antibody concentrations against influenza among vaccinated HIV-infected persons who have minimal AIDS-related symptoms and normal or near-normal CD4+T-lymphocyte cell counts. Among persons who have advanced HIV disease and low CD4+T-lymphocyte cell counts, TIV might not induce protective antibody titers; a second dose of vaccine does not improve the immune response in these persons. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial determined that TIV was highly effective in preventing symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection among HIV-infected persons with a mean of 400 CD4+T-lymphocyte cells/mm3; however, a limited number of persons with CD4+ T-lymphocyte cell counts of &lt;200 were included in that study. A nonrandomized study of HIV-infected persons determined that influenza vaccination was most effective among persons with &gt;100 CD4+ cells and among those with &lt;30,000 viral copies of HIV type-1/mL. 
     Transplant Recipients— 
     On the basis of certain small studies, immunogenicity for persons with solid organ transplants varies according to transplant type. Among persons with kidney or heart transplants, the proportion that developed seroprotective antibody concentrations was similar or slightly reduced compared with healthy persons. However, a study among persons with liver transplants indicated reduced immunologic responses to influenza vaccination, especially if vaccination occurred within the 4 months after the transplant procedure. 
     Other Medical Conditions— 
     persons with underlying medical conditions including asthma, reactive airways disease, or other chronic disorders of the pulmonary or cardiovascular systems; metabolic diseases such as diabetes, renal dysfunction, and hemoglobinopathies; or known or suspected immunodeficiency diseases or immunosuppressed states should not be vaccinated with LAIV. In addition children or adolescents receiving aspirin or other salicylates should not be vaccinated with a LAIV because of the association of Reye syndrome and salicylates with wild-type influenza virus infection. Individuals with acute febrile illness should not be vaccinated with TIV or LAW. 
     Pediatric Chronic Medical Conditions— 
     Among children with high-risk medical conditions, one study of 52 children aged 6 months-3 years reported fever among 27% and irritability and insomnia among 25% (113); and a study among 33 children aged 6-18 months reported that one child had irritability and one had a fever and seizure after vaccination. No placebo comparison group was used in these studies. 
     Hypersensitivity and Allergic Reactions— 
     Immediate and presumably allergic reactions (e.g., hives, angioedema, allergic asthma, and systemic anaphylaxis) occur rarely after influenza vaccination. These reactions probably result from hypersensitivity to certain vaccine components; the majority of reactions probably are caused by residual egg protein. Although influenza vaccines contain only a limited quantity of egg protein, this protein can induce immediate hypersensitivity reactions among persons who have severe egg allergy. Manufacturers use a variety of different compounds to inactivate influenza viruses and add antibiotics to prevent bacterial contamination. Persons who have experienced hives or swelling of the lips or tongue, or who have experienced acute respiratory distress or who collapse after eating eggs, must consult a physician for appropriate evaluation to help determine if vaccine should be administered. Persons who have documented immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated hypersensitivity to eggs, including those who have had occupational asthma related to egg exposure or other allergic responses to egg protein, also might be at increased risk for allergic reactions to influenza vaccine, and consultation with a physician before vaccination must be considered. Hypersensitivity reactions to other vaccine components can occur but are rare. Although exposure to vaccines containing thimerosal can lead to hypersensitivity, the majority of patients do not have reactions to thimerosal when it is administered as a component of vaccines, even when patch or intradermal tests for thimerosal indicate hypersensitivity. When reported, hypersensitivity to thimerosal typically has consisted of local delayed hypersensitivity reactions. 
     Guillain-Barré Syndrome— 
     The annual incidence of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) is 10-20 cases per 1 million adults. Substantial evidence exists that multiple infectious illnesses, most notably  Campylobacter jejuni  gastrointestinal infections and upper respiratory tract infections, are associated with GBS. The 1976 swine influenza vaccine was associated with an increased frequency of GBS, estimated at one additional case of GBS per 100,000 persons vaccinated. The risk for influenza vaccine-associated GBS was higher among persons aged &gt;25 years than among persons aged &lt;25 years. However, obtaining strong epidemiologic evidence for a possible small increase in risk for a rare condition with multiple causes is difficult, and no evidence exists for a consistent causal relation between subsequent vaccines prepared from other influenza viruses and GBS. 
     None of the studies conducted using influenza vaccines other than the 1976 swine influenza vaccine have demonstrated a substantial increase in GBS associated with influenza vaccines. During three of four influenza seasons studied during 1977-1991, the overall relative risk estimates for GBS after influenza vaccination were not statistically significant in any of these studies. However, in a study of the 1992-93 and 1993-94 seasons, the overall relative risk for GBS was 1.7 (CI=1.0-2.8; p=0.04) during the 6 weeks after vaccination, representing approximately one additional case of GBS per 1 million persons vaccinated; the combined number of GBS cases peaked 2 weeks after vaccination. Results of a study that examined health-care data from Ontario, Canada, during 1992-2004 demonstrated a small but statistically significant temporal association between receiving influenza vaccination and subsequent hospital admission for GBS. However, no increase in cases of GBS at the population level was reported after introduction of a mass public influenza vaccination program in Ontario beginning in 2000. Data from VAERS have documented decreased reporting of GBS occurring after vaccination across age groups over time, despite overall increased reporting of other, non-GBS conditions occurring after administration of influenza vaccine. Cases of GBS after influenza virus infection have been reported, but no other epidemiologic studies have documented such an association. Recently published data from the United Kingdom&#39;s General Practice Research Database (GPRD) found influenza vaccine to be protective against GBS, although it is unclear if this was associated with protection against influenza or confounding because of a “healthy vaccine” (e.g., healthier persons might be more likely to be vaccinated and are lower risk for GBS). A separate GPRD analysis found no association between vaccination and GBS over a 9 year period; only three cases of GBS occurred within 6 weeks after influenza vaccine. 
     It is not known if GBS is a side effect of influenza vaccines other than 1976 swine influenza vaccine; the estimated risk for GBS (on the basis of the few studies that have demonstrated an association between vaccination and GBS) is low (i.e., approximately one additional case per 1 million persons vaccinated). It has been deemed by the CDC and others that the potential benefits of influenza vaccination in preventing serious illness, hospitalization, and death substantially outweigh these estimates of risk for vaccine-associated GBS. No evidence indicates that the case fatality ratio for GBS differs among vaccinated persons and those not vaccinated 
     The incidence of GBS among the general population is low, but persons with a history of GBS have a substantially greater likelihood of subsequently experiencing GBS when injected with TIV influenza vaccine than persons without such a history. Thus, the likelihood of coincidentally experiencing GBS after influenza vaccination is expected to be greater among persons with a history of GBS than among persons with no history of this syndrome. Whether influenza vaccination specifically might increase the risk for recurrence of GBS is unknown. However, avoiding vaccinating persons who are not at high risk for severe influenza complications and who are known to have experienced GBS within 6 weeks after a previous influenza vaccination is often taken as a prudent as a precaution. As an alternative, physicians use influenza antiviral chemoprophylaxis for these persons. Although data are limited, the established benefits of influenza vaccination might outweigh the risks for many persons who have a history of GBS and who are also at high risk for severe complications from influenza. 
     Viral Shedding— 
     Available data indicates that both children and adults vaccinated with LAIV can shed vaccine viruses after vaccination, although in lower amounts than occur typically with shedding of wild-type influenza viruses. In rare instances, shed vaccine viruses can be transmitted from vaccine recipients to unvaccinated persons. However, serious illnesses have not been reported among unvaccinated persons who have been infected inadvertently with vaccine viruses. 
     One study of children aged 8-36 months in a child care center assessed transmissibility of vaccine viruses from 98 vaccinated to 99 unvaccinated subjects; 80% of vaccine recipients shed one or more virus strains (mean duration: 7.6 days). One influenza type B vaccine strain isolate was recovered from a placebo recipient and was confirmed to be vaccine-type virus. The type B isolate retained the cold-adapted, temperature-sensitive, attenuated phenotype, and it possessed the same genetic sequence as a virus shed from a vaccine recipient who was in the same play group. The placebo recipient from whom the influenza type B vaccine strain was isolated had symptoms of a mild upper respiratory illness but did not experience any serious clinical events. The estimated probability of acquiring vaccine virus after close contact with a single LAIV recipient in this child care population was 0.6%-2.4%. 
     Studies assessing whether vaccine viruses are shed have been based on viral cultures or PCR detection of vaccine viruses in nasal aspirates from persons who have received LAIV. One study of 20 healthy vaccinated adults aged 18-49 years demonstrated that the majority of shedding occurred within the first 3 days after vaccination, although the vaccine virus was detected in one subject on day 7 after vaccine receipt. Duration or type of symptoms associated with receipt of LAIV did not correlate with detection of vaccine viruses in nasal aspirates. Another study in 14 healthy adults aged 18-49 years indicated that 50% of these adults had viral antigen detected by direct immunofluorescence or rapid antigen tests within 7 days of vaccination. The majority of samples with detectable virus were collected on day 2 or 3. Vaccine strain virus was detected from nasal secretions in one (2%) of 57 HIV-infected adults who received LAIV, none of 54 HIV-negative participants (256), and three (13%) of 23 HIV-infected children compared with seven (28%) of 25 children who were not HIV-infected. No participants in these studies had detectable virus beyond 10 days after receipt of LAIV. The possibility of person-to-person transmission of vaccine viruses was not assessed in these studies. 
     LAIV Side Effects— 
     In a subset of healthy children aged 60-71 months from one clinical trial (233), certain signs and symptoms were reported more often after the first dose among LAIV recipients (n=214) than among placebo recipients (n=95), including runny nose (48% and 44%, respectively); headache (18% and 12%, respectively); vomiting (5% and 3%, respectively); and myalgias (6% and 4%, respectively). However, these differences were not statistically significant. In other trials, signs and symptoms reported after LAIV administration have included runny nose or nasal congestion (20%-75%), headache (2%-46%), fever (0-26%), vomiting (3%-13%), abdominal pain (2%), and myalgias (0-21%). These symptoms were associated more often with the first dose and were self-limited. 
     In a randomized trial published in 2007, LAIV and TIV were compared among children aged 6-59 months. Children with medically diagnosed or treated wheezing within 42 days before enrollment, or a history of severe asthma, were excluded from this study. Among children aged 24-59 months who received LAIV, the rate of medically significant wheezing, using a pre-specified definition, was not greater compared with those who received TIV; wheezing was observed more frequently among younger LAW recipients in this study. In a previous randomized placebo-controlled safety trial among children aged 12 months-17 years without a history of asthma by parental report, an elevated risk for asthma events (RR=4.06, CI=1.29-17.86) was documented among 728 children aged 18-35 months who received LAIV. Of the 16 children with asthma-related events in this study, seven had a history of asthma on the basis of subsequent medical record review. None required hospitalization, and elevated risks for asthma were not observed in other age groups. 
     Among adults aged 19-49, runny nose or nasal congestion (28%-78%), headache (16%-44%), and sore throat (15%-27%) have been reported more often among vaccine recipients than placebo recipients. In one clinical trial among a subset of healthy adults aged 18-49 years, signs and symptoms reported more frequently among LAW recipients (n=2,548) than placebo recipients (n=1,290) within 7 days after each dose included cough (14% and 11%, respectively); runny nose (45% and 27%, respectively); sore throat (28% and 17%, respectively); chills (9% and 6%, respectively); and tiredness/weakness (26% and 22%, respectively). 
     There are additional reasons why it would be useful to have alternative or adjunctive prophylactic and/or therapeutic options for the prevention and/or treatment of Influenza, as discussed below. 
     Challenging Prediction of Virus Strains— 
     Manufacturing trivalent influenza virus vaccines is a challenging process that takes 6-8 months to complete. This manufacturing timeframe requires that influenza vaccine strains for influenza vaccines used in the United States must be selected in February of each year by the FDA to allow time for manufacturers to prepare vaccines for the next influenza season. Vaccine strain selections are based on global viral surveillance data that is used to identify trends in antigenic changes among circulating influenza viruses and the availability of suitable vaccine virus candidates. 
     Vaccination can provide reduced but substantial cross-protection against drifted strains in some seasons, including reductions in severe outcomes such as hospitalization. Usually one or more circulating viruses with antigenic changes compared with the vaccine strains are identified in each influenza season. However, assessment of the clinical effectiveness of influenza vaccines cannot be determined solely by laboratory evaluation of the degree of antigenic match between vaccine and circulating strains. In some influenza seasons, circulating influenza viruses with significant antigenic differences predominate and, compared with seasons when vaccine and circulating strains are well-matched, reductions in vaccine effectiveness are sometimes observed. However, even during years when vaccine strains were not antigenically well matched to circulating strains, substantial protection has been observed against severe outcomes, presumably because of vaccine-induced cross-reacting antibodies. For example, in one study conducted during an influenza season (2003-04) when the predominant circulating strain was an influenza A (H3N2) virus that was antigenically different from that season&#39;s vaccine strain, effectiveness among persons aged 50-64 years against laboratory-confirmed influenza illness was 60% among healthy persons and 48% among persons with medical conditions that increase risk for influenza complications. An interim, within-season analysis during the 2007-08 influenza season indicated that vaccine effectiveness was 44% overall, 54% among healthy persons aged 5-49 years, and 58% against influenza A, despite the finding that viruses circulating in the study area were predominately a drifted influenza A H3N2 and a influenza B strain from a different lineage compared with vaccine strains. Among children, both TIV and LAW provide protection against infection even in seasons when vaccines and circulating strains are not well matched. Vaccine effectiveness against ILI was 49%-69% in two observational studies, and 49% against medically attended, laboratory-confirmed influenza in a case-control study conducted among young children during the 2003-04 influenza season, when a drifted influenza A H3N2 strain predominated, based on viral surveillance data. However, the FDA admits that continued improvements in collecting representative circulating viruses and use surveillance data to forecast antigenic drift are needed. Shortening manufacturing time to increase the time to identify good vaccine candidate strains from among the most recent circulating strains also is also important. Data from multiple seasons and collected in a consistent manner are needed to better understand vaccine effectiveness during seasons when circulating and vaccine virus strains are not well-matched. 
     Vaccine Coverage— 
     vaccination coverage of the population is influenced by a multitude of factors including vaccine supply delays and shortages, changes in influenza vaccination recommendations and target groups for vaccination, reimbursement rates for vaccine and vaccine administration, and other factors related to vaccination coverage among adults and children. Production issues coupled with the requirement to forecast appropriate influenza types and antigens have caused severe shortfalls in vaccine availability, for example in the years 2004-05 an American company, Chiron, had their operating license suspended by British officials following problems at their manufacturing plant in Liverpool, England. Due to contamination in a batch of vaccines intended for American market they were unable to supply their flu vaccine, Fluvirin. Fluvirin made up approximately 50% of America&#39;s expected demand for the winter flu season. 
     Because of the inherent risk factors and the reluctance of individuals to accept those risks, many at risk groups have very low vaccination coverage. For example vaccine coverage among pregnant women has not increased significantly during the preceding decade. Only 12% and 13% of pregnant women participating in the 2006 and 2007 NHIS reported vaccination during the 2005-06 and 2006-07 seasons, respectively, excluding pregnant women who reported diabetes, heart disease, lung disease, and other selected high-risk conditions. In a study of influenza vaccine acceptance by pregnant women, 71% of those who were offered the vaccine chose to be vaccinated. However, a 1999 survey of obstetricians and gynecologists determined that only 39% administered influenza vaccine to obstetric patients in their practices, although 86% agreed that pregnant women&#39;s risk for influenza-related morbidity and mortality increases during the last two trimesters. 
     Drug Resistance— 
     Viral neuraminidase is an enzyme on the surface of influenza viruses that enables the virus to be released from the host cell. Drugs that inhibit neuraminidase are often used to treat influenza. Neuraminidase has been targeted in structure-based enzyme inhibitor design programmes that have resulted in the production of two drugs, zanamivir (Relenza) and oseltamivir (Tamiflu). Administration of neuraminidase inhibitors is a treatment that limits the severity and spread of viral infections. Neuraminidase inhibitors are useful for combating influenza infection: zanamivir, administered by inhalation; oseltamivir, administered orally; and under research is peramivir administered parenterally, that is through intravenous or intramuscular injection. 
     On Feb. 27, 2005, a 14-year-old Vietnamese girl was documented to be carrying an H5N1 influenza virus strain that was resistant to the drug oseltamivir. The drug is used to treat patients that have contracted influenza. However, the Vietnamese girl who had received a prophylaxis dose (75 mg once a day) was found to be non-responsive to the medication. In growing fears of a global avian flu pandemic, scientists began to look for a cause of resistance to the Tamiflu medication. The cause was determined to be a histidine-to-tryosine (amino acid) substitution at position 274 in its neuraminidase protein. 
     SUMMARY 
     This disclosure relates to the prevention and/or treatment of Influenza, including Influenza A Virus Subtype H1N1, with the use of a pharmaceutical composition comprising one or more digestive enzymes, including pancreatic or other digestive-track enzymes (e.g., porcine pancreatic enzymes or bird-derived digestive track enzymes) or plant-, fungal-, or microorganism-derived enzymes, that break down components of food. As used herein, a pharmaceutical composition can be used for human or veterinary indications. Accordingly, the pharmaceutical compositions can be useful for prophylactic and/or therapeutic treatment of human or other mammalian populations (e.g., pig, horse, cow, sheep, goat, monkey, rat, mouse, cat, dog) or of bird populations (e.g., duck, goose, chicken, turkey). The disclosure further relates to the use of an individual&#39;s (e.g., a human&#39;s) fecal chymotrypsin level as an indicator, e.g., biomarker, of whether an individual may be immune-compromised and/or whether an individual may be susceptible to Influenza in general, and in particular to Influenza A Subtype H1N1, and/or as a biomarker of whether an individual will benefit from administration of a described pharmaceutical composition, e.g., to prevent and/or treat Influenza. The compositions can be used on their own, and/or as adjuncts to vaccination or other anti-viral regimens, and/or with other therapeutic or anti-viral agents post-infection to treat Influenza. 
     The present disclosure also relates to enzyme delivery systems comprising digestive enzyme preparations, which are useful in the prophylaxis and treatment of influenza in general and more particularly useful for the prevention and treatment of Influenza A Virus, Subtype H1N1, including H1N1 variants swine influenza (endemic in pigs) and avian influenza (endemic in birds). In some embodiments, the digestive enzyme preparations of this disclosure permit controlled delivery of enzymes having increased stability and enhanced administration properties for the prevention of influenza infection and treatment of influenza symptoms. 
     In virus classification the influenza virus is an RNA virus of three of the five genera of the family Orthomyxoviridae: Influenzavirus A, Influenzavirus B, Influenzavirus C. These viruses are only distantly related to the human parainfluenza viruses, which are RNA viruses belonging to the paramyxovirus family that are a common cause of respiratory infections in children such as croup, but can also cause a disease similar to influenza in adults. 
     Influenza viruses A, B and C are very similar in overall structure. The virus particle is 80-120 nanometres in diameter and usually roughly spherical, although filamentous forms can occur. These filamentous forms are more common in influenza C, which can form cordlike structures up to 500 micrometres long on the surfaces of infected cells. However, despite these varied shapes, the viral particles of all influenza viruses are similar in composition. These are made of a viral envelope containing two main types of glycoproteins, wrapped around a central core. The central core contains the viral RNA genome and other viral proteins that package and protect this RNA. Unusually for a virus, its genome is not a single piece of nucleic acid; instead, it contains seven or eight pieces of segmented negative-sense RNA, each piece of RNA contains either one or two genes. For example, the influenza A genome contains 11 genes on eight pieces of RNA, encoding for 11 proteins: hemagglutinin (HA), neuraminidase (NA), nucleoprotein (NP), M1, M2, NS1, NS2(NEP), PA, PB1, PB1-F2 and PB2. 
     Hemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA) are the two large glycoproteins on the outside of the viral particles. HA is a lectin that mediates binding of the virus to target cells and entry of the viral genome into the target cell, while NA is involved in the release of progeny virus from infected cells, by cleaving sugars that bind the mature viral particles. Thus, these proteins are targets for antiviral drugs. Furthermore, they are antigens to which antibodies can be raised. Influenza A viruses are classified into subtypes based on antibody responses to HA and NA. These different types of HA and NA form the basis of the H and N distinctions in, for example, H5N1. There are 16 H and 9 N subtypes known, but only H 1, 2 and 3, and N 1 and 2 are commonly found in humans. 
     There are at least 16 different HA antigens. These subtypes are labeled H1 through H16. The last, H16, was discovered only recently on influenza A viruses isolated from black-headed gulls from Sweden and Norway. The first three hemagglutinins, H1, H2, and H3, are found in human influenza viruses. 
     A highly pathogenic avian flu virus of H5N1 type has been found to infect humans at a low rate. It has been reported that single amino acid changes in this avian virus strain&#39;s type H5 hemagglutinin have been found in human patients that “can significantly alter receptor specificity of avian H5N1 viruses, providing them with an ability to bind to receptors optimal for human influenza viruses”. This finding seems to explain how an H5N1 virus that normally does not infect humans can mutate and become able to efficiently infect human cells. The hemagglutinin of the H5N1 virus has been associated with the high pathogenicity of this flu virus strain, apparently due to its ease of conversion to an active form by proteolysis. 
     HA has two primary functions: allowing the recognition of target vertebrate cells, accomplished through the binding of these cells&#39; sialic acid-containing receptors, and allowing the entry of the viral genome into the target cells by causing the fusion of host endosomal membrane with the viral membrane. 
     HA binds to the monosaccharide sialic acid which is present on the surface of its target cells. This causes the viral particles to stick to the cell&#39;s surface. The cell membrane then engulfs the virus and the portion of the membrane that encloses it pinches off to form a new membrane-bound compartment within the cell called an endosome, which contains the engulfed virus. The cell then attempts to begin digesting the contents of the endosome by acidifying its interior and transforming it into a lysosome. However, as soon as the pH within the endosome drops to about 6.0, the original folded structure of the HA molecule becomes unstable, causing it to partially unfold, and releasing a very hydrophobic portion of its peptide chain that was previously hidden within the protein. This so-called “fusion peptide” acts like a molecular grappling hook by inserting itself into the endosomal membrane and locking on. Then, when the rest of the HA molecule refolds into a new structure (which is more stable at the lower pH), it “retracts the grappling hook” and pulls the endosomal membrane right up next to the virus particle&#39;s own membrane, causing the two to fuse together. Once this has happened, the contents of the virus, including its RNA genome, are free to pour out into the cell&#39;s cytoplasm. 
     HA is a homotrimeric integral membrane glycoprotein. It is shaped like a cylinder, and is approximately 13.5 nanometres long. The three identical monomers that constitute HA are constructed into a central a helix coil; three spherical heads contain the sialic acid binding sites. HA monomers are synthesized as precursors that are then glycosylated and cleaved into two smaller polypeptides: the HA1 and HA2 subunits. Each HA monomer consists of a long, helical chain anchored in the membrane by HA2 and topped by a large HA′ globule. 
     Viral neuraminidase is an enzyme on the surface of influenza viruses that enables the virus to be released from the host cell. Drugs that inhibit neuraminidase are often used to treat influenza. When influenza virus reproduces, it moves to the cell surface with a hemagglutinin molecule on the surface of the virus bound to a sialic acid receptor on the surface of the cell. In order for the virus to be released free from the cell, neuraminidase must break apart (cleave) the sialic acid receptor. In some viruses, a hemagglutinin-neuraminidase protein combines the neuraminidase and hemagglutinin functions in a single protein. 
     The viral neuraminidase enzyme helps viruses to be released from a host cell. 
     Influenza virus membranes contain two glycoproteins: haemagglutinin and neuraminidase. While the hemagglutinin on the surface of the virion is needed for infection, its presence inhibits release of the particle after budding. It also mediates cell-surface sialic acid receptor binding to initiate virus infection. Viral neuraminidase cleaves terminal neuraminic acid (also called sialic acid) residues from glycan structures on the surface of the infected cell. This promotes the release of progeny viruses and the spread of the virus from the host cell to uninfected surrounding cells. Neuraminidase also cleaves sialic acid residues from viral proteins, preventing aggregation of viruses. 
     Ideally, influenza virus neuraminidase (NA) should act on the same type of receptor the virus hemagglutinin (HA) binds to, a phenomenon which does not always happen. It is not quite clear how the virus manages to function when there is no close match between the specificities of NA and HA. 
     The viral neuraminidase enzyme can have endo- or exo-glycosidase activity, and are classified as EC 3.2.1.29 (endo-neuraminidase) and EC 3.2.1.18 (exo-neuraminidases). In general, mammalian sialic acid residues are at terminal positions (non-reducing end) in complex glycans, and so viral neuraminidases which are exo-glycosidase enzymes use these terminal residues as their substrates. 
     Influenza viruses bind through hemagglutinin onto sialic acid sugars on the surfaces of epithelial cells; typically in the nose, throat and lungs of mammals and intestines of birds (Stage 1 in infection). After the hemagglutinin is cleaved by a protease, the cell imports the virus by endocytosis. 
     Once inside the cell, the acidic conditions in the endosome cause two events to happen: first part of the hemagglutinin protein fuses the viral envelope with the vacuole&#39;s membrane, then the M2 ion channel allows protons to move through the viral envelope and acidify the core of the virus, which causes the core to dissemble and release the viral RNA and core proteins. The viral RNA (vRNA) molecules, accessory proteins and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase are then released into the cytoplasm (Stage 2). The M2 ion channel is blocked by amantadine drugs, preventing infection. 
     These core proteins and vRNA form a complex that is transported into the cell nucleus, where the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase begins transcribing complementary positive-sense vRNA (Steps 3a and b). The vRNA is either exported into the cytoplasm and translated (step 4), or remains in the nucleus. Newly synthesized viral proteins are either secreted through the Golgi apparatus onto the cell surface (in the case of neuraminidase and hemagglutinin, step 5b) or transported back into the nucleus to bind vRNA and form new viral genome particles (step 5a). Other viral proteins have multiple actions in the host cell, including degrading cellular mRNA and using the released nucleotides for vRNA synthesis and also inhibiting translation of host-cell mRNAs. 
     Negative-sense vRNAs that form the genomes of future viruses, RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, and other viral proteins are assembled into a virion. Hemagglutinin and neuraminidase molecules cluster into a bulge in the cell membrane. The vRNA and viral core proteins leave the nucleus and enter this membrane protrusion (step 6). The mature virus buds off from the cell in a sphere of host phospholipid membrane, acquiring hemagglutinin and neuraminidase with this membrane coat (step 7). As before, the viruses adhere to the cell through hemagglutinin; the mature viruses detach once their neuraminidase has cleaved sialic acid residues from the host cell. Drugs that inhibit neuraminidase, such as oseltamivir, therefore prevent the release of new infectious viruses and halt viral replication. After the release of new influenza viruses, the host cell dies. 
     Because of the absence of RNA proofreading enzymes, the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase that copies the viral genome makes an error roughly every 10 thousand nucleotides, which is the approximate length of the influenza vRNA. Hence, the majority of newly manufactured influenza viruses are mutants, this causes “antigenic drift”, which is a slow change in the antigens on the viral surface over time. The separation of the genome into eight separate segments of vRNA allows mixing or reassortment of vRNAs if more than one type of influenza virus infects a single cell. The resulting rapid change in viral genetics produces antigenic shifts, which are sudden changes from one antigen to another. These sudden large changes allow the virus to infect new host species and quickly overcome protective immunity. 
     New research shows that the 2009 H1N1 “swine flu” virus may lack a piece of genetic material that has been present in all other pandemic flu viruses, meaning that this flu may not be quite as transmissible as other flu viruses. However, in two instances discovered thus far, one in Denmark and one in Japan, the virus has been found to be resistant to antiviral drugs, which is concerning as these drugs may provide some defense if taken early on in the illness. 
     New mutations in the H1N1 virus are believed to allow it to flourish in the small intestine, which is something that “normal” influenza cannot do. Researchers believe this is why the H1N1 virus can cause gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Seasonal influenza typically causes respiratory symptoms without the gastrointestinal symptoms seen in the H1N1 virus. 
     Accordingly, while not bound by theory, the etiology of influenza susceptibility may be caused, in part, by an inadequate response of the human gastrointestinal immune system, e.g., in populations such as the elderly and children, and in immune-compromised individuals. 
     Given the above, it is a goal of the present disclosure to provide therapeutic methods and pharmaceutical compositions for the prevention and treatment of influenza by supplementing the normal pancreatic functions and functions of the gastrointestinal immune system with digestive enzyme preparations, including the pharmaceutical compositions described herein. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is the use of pancreatic enzymes to provide therapeutic methods and pharmaceutical compositions for the prevention and treatment of Influenza A, Subtype H1N1 swine flu. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is the use of avian proventriculus and small intestine enzymes to provide therapeutic methods and pharmaceutical compositions for the prevention of Influenza A, Subtype H1N1 avian flu. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is the provision of pharmaceutical compositions for the prevention and/or treatment of the Influenza, wherein the compositions comprise one or more digestive enzymes, e.g., one or more enzymes selected from amylases, proteases, cellulases, papain (e.g., from papapya), bromelain (e.g., from pineapples), lipases, chymotrypsin, trypsin, and hydrolases. In some embodiments, the pharmaceutical compositions are lipid encapsulated. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is to provide a prophylactic measure against influenza for pregnant women, neonates, and infants. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is to provide a treatment for the symptoms of influenza for pregnant women, neonates, and infants. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is to provide a prophylactic measure against influenza for the elderly, including those that do not respond well to vaccination. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is to provide a treatment for the symptoms of influenza in the elderly. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is to provide a prophylactic measure against influenza for HTV compromised individuals and those with ATDS. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is to provide a treatment for the symptoms of influenza in HIV compromised individuals and those with AIDS. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is to provide a prophylactic measure against influenza for organ transplant recipients. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is to provide a treatment for the symptoms of influenza for organ transplant recipients. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is to provide a prophylactic measure against influenza for persons with any underlying medical conditions including asthma, reactive airways disease, or other chronic disorders of the pulmonary or cardiovascular systems; other underlying medical conditions, including such metabolic diseases as diabetes, renal dysfunction, and hemoglobinopathies; or known or suspected immunodeficiency diseases or immunosuppressed states. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is to provide a treatment for the symptoms of influenza for persons with underlying medical conditions including asthma, reactive airways disease, or other chronic disorders of the pulmonary or cardiovascular systems; other underlying medical conditions, including such metabolic diseases as diabetes, renal dysfunction, and hemoglobinopathies; or known or suspected immunodeficiency diseases or immunosuppressed states. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is to provide a prophylactic measure against influenza for children or adolescents receiving aspirin or other salicylates due to increased risk of Reye Syndrome. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is to provide a treatment for the symptoms of influenza for children or adolescents receiving aspirin or other salicylates due to increased risk of Reye Syndrome. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is to provide a prophylactic measure against influenza for individuals with acute febrile illness. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is to provide a treatment for the symptoms of influenza for individuals with acute febrile illness. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is to provide a prophylactic measure against influenza for children with chronic medical conditions and children under the age of 2. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is to provide a treatment for the symptoms of influenza for children with chronic medical conditions and children under the age of 2. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is to provide a prophylactic measure against influenza for individuals with hypersensitivity and allergic reactions including hypersensitivity and allergies to residual egg proteins and other components of TIV and LAIV influenza vaccines including thimerosal and antibiotics. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is to provide a prophylactic measure against influenza for those with a proportionately higher risk of Guillain-Barré Syndrome recurrence with TIV or LAW influenza vaccination or those with the inability to use LAIV after a history of GBS with TIV. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is to provide a prophylactic measure against influenza with reduced risk of Guillain-Barré Syndrome. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is to provide a prophylactic measure against influenza which reduces or eliminates viral shedding. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is to provide a treatment for influenza which reduces or eliminates viral shedding. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is to provide a prophylactic measure against influenza which reduces or eliminates LAIV and TIV side effects including, but not limited to: runny nose, headache, vomiting, myalgias, abdominal pain sore throat, asthma, and tiredness/weakness. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is to provide a prophylactic measure against influenza which does not require forward prediction of virus strains and associated antigens to be effective. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is to provide a prophylactic measure against influenza which does not require extensive prediction of virus strains and associated antigens to have extensive lead time to produce vaccine in sufficient quantities. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is to provide a prophylactic measure against influenza with inherently lower risk factors thereby increasing prophylactic coverage of both at risk and general populations, thereby overcoming the reluctance of individuals who refuse to obtain a LAIV or TIV vaccination. 
     Another goal of the present disclosure is to provide a prophylactic measure against influenza which does not promote or contribute to drug resistance. 
     An additional goal of the disclosure is to demonstrate the use of fecal chymotrypsin level as a biomarker for the likelihood of an individual&#39;s susceptibility to influenza. 
     Yet another goal of the disclosure is to demonstrate the use of fecal chymotrypsin level as a biomarker for diagnosis of a compromised immune system, or for determining if an individual is likely to benefit from administration of a composition as described herein. 
     Yet another goal is to provide adjunctive compositions and methods to vaccination and/or anti-viral prophylactic medications, and/or adjunctive compositions and methods to therapeutic medications for the prevention and treatment of influenza. 
     Tt is a further goal of the present disclosure to provide viricidal and/or viristatic compositions comprising one or more digestive enzymes for use as or in disinfectants, sanitizers, detergents, and antiseptics, e.g., in hospitals, nursing homes, nurseries, daycares, schools, work environments, public transportation and restroom facilities, to reduce and/or destroy influenza viruses present in such settings. The surfaces can be large (e.g., operating room tables, doors, changing tables) or small (e.g., medical devices, door handles); inanimate (tables) or animate (hands, e.g., detergents for hand-washing). The compositions can thus be useful to treat surfaces to reduce or kill influenza virus thereon, and thereby prevent or reduce the spread of influenza. 
     Accordingly, provided herein is a method for preventing and/or treating Influenza comprising administering to the patient a therapeutically effective amount of a pharmaceutical composition comprising one or more digestive enzymes. In some embodiments, the pharmaceutical composition may be encapsulated; such encapsulated compositions may be referred to as enzyme preparations herein. In some embodiments, the pharmaceutical composition can be lipid-encapsulated. 
     In some embodiments, the one or more digestive enzymes comprise one or more enzymes selected from the group consisting of proteases, amylases, celluloses, sucrases, maltases, papain (e.g., from papaya), bromelain (e.g., from pineapple), hydrolases, and lipases. In some embodiments, the one or more digestive enzymes comprise one or more pancreatic enzymes. In some embodiments, the pharmaceutical composition comprises one or more proteases, one or more lipases, and one or more amylases. In some embodiments, the one or more proteases comprise chymotrypsin and trypsin. 
     The one or more digestive enzymes are, independently, derived from an animal source, a microbial source, a fungal source, or a plant source, or are synthetically prepared. In some embodiments, the animal source is a pig, e.g., a pig pancreas, or avian, e.g., “bird” proventriculus or small intestine. 
     In some embodiments, the pharmaceutical composition comprises at least one amylase, a mixture of proteases comprising chymotrypsin and trypsin, and at least one lipase. The pharmaceutical composition can further include papain, e.g., from papaya. In some embodiments, the pharmaceutical composition comprises per dose: amylases from about 10,000 to about 60,000 U.S.P, including 10,000, 15,000, 20,000, 25,000, 30,000, 35,000, 40,000, 45,000, 50,000, 55,000, and 60,000 U.S.P, along with all values in-between, proteases from about 10,000 to about 70,000 U.S.P, including 10,000, 15,000, 20,000, 25,000, 30,000, 35,000, 40,000, 45,000, 50,000, 55,000, 60,000, 65,000, and 70,000, along with all values in-between, lipases from about 4,000 to about 30,000 U.S.P, including, 4,000, 5,000, 10,000, 15,000, 20,000, 25,000, and 30,000, along with all values in-between, chymotrypsin from about 2 to about 5 mg including 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, and 5.0 mg, along with all values in-between, trypsin from about 60 to about 100 mg including 50, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85,90, 95, and 100 mg, including all values in between; papain from about 3,000 to about 10,000 USP units including 3,000, 4,000, 5,000, 6,000, 7,000, 8,000, 9,000, and 10,000 USP, along with all values in between, and papaya from about 30 to about 60 mg, including 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, and 60 mg, along with all values in between. 
     In some embodiments, the pharmaceutical composition comprises at least one protease and at least one lipase, wherein the ratio of total proteases to total lipases (in USP units) ranges from about 1:1 to about 20:1 including 1:1, 2:1, 3;1, 4:1, 5;1, 6:1, 7:1, 8:1, 9:1, 10:1, 11;1, 12;1, 13;1, 14:1, 15:1, 16;1, 17:1, 18:1, 19:1 and 20:1, long with all values in-between. In some embodiments, the ratio of proteases to lipases ranges from about 4:1 to about 10:1 including 4:1, 5:1, 6:1, 7:1, 8:1, 9:1, and 10:1, along with all values in-between. 
     In some embodiments, the one or more symptoms of influenza include: fever, headache, tiredness, cough, sore throat, runny or stuffy nose, body aches, diarrhea and vomiting, and a combination thereof. 
     In some embodiments, the pharmaceutical composition is a dosage formulation selected from the group consisting of: pills, tablets, capsules, microcapsules, mini-capsules, time released capsules, mini-tabs, sprinkles, and a combination thereof. 
     In some embodiments, a pharmaceutical composition comprises a core comprising one or more digestive enzymes, as described previously and a coating which comprises a crystallizable lipid. The core contains an amount of the one or more digestive enzymes effective for the prevention or treatment of Influenza. Among other properties, the coating protects the digestive enzymes from destabilizing factors such as solvents, heat, light, moisture and other environmental factors. The coating also provides controlled release of the enzymes when the encapsulate is exposed to a physiological conditions. In addition, in one aspect of this disclosure, the coated digestive enzyme preparations of this disclosure have improved pour properties, and improved taste and smell of the digestive enzyme particles. The coated digestive enzyme preparations can be used to obtain release at selected transit times or in selected locations of the gastrointestinal tract of mammals, as necessary. 
     In some embodiments, a specific blend of enzymes and lipids for enzyme administration to individuals for the prevention and/or treatment or influenza is provided. 
     In another embodiment a coated digestive enzyme preparation comprising (a) a core containing a digestive enzyme particle, where the enzyme present in an amount of from about 5% to 90% by weight of the particles, including 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, and 90% by weight, along with all values in-between; and (b) a coating comprising a crystallizable lipid, wherein the coating continuously coats the core and the crystallizable lipid releases the enzyme upon exposure to physiological conditions. 
     In another embodiment a pharmaceutical composition comprising a therapeutically effective amount of an encapsulated enzyme preparation, which comprises (a) a core which comprises an amount of pancreatic or digestive enzymes effective for prophylaxis of influenza or treatment of the symptoms of influenza; and (b) coating comprising a crystallizable lipid. 
     In yet another embodiment an enzyme delivery system comprising an encapsulated enzyme preparation having particles which comprise: (a) a core comprising pancreatic or digestive enzymes present in an amount of from about 5% to 95% by weight of the particles, including 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90% and 95% by weight along with all values in-between; and (b) a generally uniform coating to provide for controlled release of the enzymes, said coating comprising a crystallizable lipid. In yet another embodiment, the encapsulated enzyme preparation particles of the enzyme delivery system are non-aerosolizable. 
     In certain embodiments, the enzyme preparations according to this disclosure produce coated enzyme preparations characterized, for example, by controlled rates of release, reduction in aerosolization and safer administration, ability to be administered by a sprinkle/sachet delivery method, improved flow characteristics, enhanced shelf life and storage capacity, and other properties described herein. In other aspects, the coated enzyme preparation has improved pour properties which facilitate manufacturing and packaging processes, for example packaging in pouches and sachets. 
     Certain coated digestive enzyme preparations which comprise a coating of a crystallizable lipid and a digestive enzyme core have favorable release and activity profiles and permit site time specific and/or location specific targeted release along the GI tract for the prevention or treatment of influenza with digestive enzymes. In some aspects, the coated pancreatic/digestive enzyme preparations are prepared to obtain specific delivery times or specific regions within the human gastrointestinal (GI) tract. In some embodiments, the crystallizable lipid composition is hydrogenated soybean oil, but may be any suitable crystallizable lipid or lipid blend. 
     Some embodiments utilize stable enzyme preparations protected against the environment to reduce, for example, degradation and/or denaturation of the enzymes. This permits delivery of more accurate doses of the enzyme preparation to treated individuals. The coating can also, in some aspects, provide emulsification when the enzyme preparations are contacted with appropriate solvents, while also surprisingly providing for controlled release of the enzyme in the gastrointestinal (GI) system. The emulsification properties of the coating in a solvent allows for controlled release of the enzyme, preferably at selected locations in the GI tract, where enzyme utilization provides the most effective prophylaxis or treatment. 
     In another embodiment enzyme preparations are utilized with lipid coating and/or encapsulation of enzymes. The method of making the preparations comprises providing a crystallizable lipid, and coating screened pancreatic/digestive enzyme particles as described herein with the lipid. The digestive enzymes comprise 5% to 95% by weight of the coated enzyme preparations, including 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90% and 95%, along with all values in-between; 
     The methods of this disclosure can be used to produce coated digestive enzyme preparations comprising digestive and/or pancreatic enzymes coated with a crystallizable lipid alone, or with a lipid blend to achieve a controlled rate of enzyme release, with increased release of the pancreatic/digestive enzyme upon exposure of the encapsulated preparation to a suitable solvent. Encapsulated pancreatic/digestive enzyme preparations having a coating comprising one or more monoglycerides exhibit increased release of the pancreatic/digestive enzyme upon exposure of the encapsulated composite to a solvent, such as water, while protecting against release in 0.1 N HCl. 
     In another embodiment, a method for administering the enzyme preparations includes administering compositions comprising one or more digestive enzymes as coated preparations. In some aspects, the disclosure relates to a prophylactic method comprising administering to a subject at least two doses of a composition comprising a therapeutically effective amount of an encapsulated digestive enzyme preparation comprising a core comprising a digestive enzyme; and a coating comprising a crystallizable lipid. Determination of whether a subject is in need of treatment with an effective amount of digestive enzymes may be based on a determination that the subject has an enzyme deficiency, and/or exhibits one or more symptoms associated with Influenza, and/or is diagnosed with Influenza, and/or is immune-compromised. 
     In another embodiment the pancreatic/digestive enzyme composites, preparations, enzyme delivery compositions or systems comprise no or fewer excipients, carriers, additives and/or extenders, and/or require the use of no or fewer solvents. In some embodiments, the coating comprises, consists of, or consists essentially of hydrogenated soybean oil, reducing exposure to potentially toxic substances and also reducing the possibility of allergy formation. In some embodiments the delivery of pancreative and/or digestive enzymes has improved safety of administration. 
     Also provided are methods for diagnosing patients based on fecal chymotrypsin levels. In one embodiment a method of diagnosing a patient comprises: obtaining a fecal sample from the patient, determining a level of chymotrypsin present in the fecal sample, in some cases wherein the determination is performed at 30° C., and diagnosing the patient as having a compromised immune system if the determined chymotrypsin level is less than a normal level (e.g., a control level). 
     In some embodiments, the fecal chymotrypsin level is between 8.4 and 4.2 U/gram. In some embodiments, the fecal chymotrypsin level is less than 4.2 U/gram. In some embodiments, the level of chymotrypsin present in the fecal sample is determined using an enzymatic photospectrometry method. In some embodiments, the method further comprises administering to the patient an effective amount of a pharmaceutical composition comprising one or more digestive enzymes if the patient is determined to have a compromised immune system, e.g., to treat or prevent influenza in the individual. 
     In some embodiments, the method further comprises determining if the administration of the pharmaceutical composition reduces the effects or symptoms of Influenza. 
     Also provided is a method of identifying a patient likely to benefit from administration of a pharmaceutical composition comprising one or more digestive enzymes comprising: obtaining a fecal sample from the patient, determining a level of chymotrypsin present in the fecal sample, in some cases wherein the determination is performed at 30° C., and identifying the patient as likely to benefit from administration of the pharmaceutical composition if the determined fecal chymotrypsin level is less than a normal (e.g., control level), e.g., in some embodiments 8.4 U/gram or less. In some embodiments, the patient is diagnosed with Influenza and/or is immune compromised. In some embodiments, the method further comprises determining if the patient exhibits one or more symptoms of Influenza. In some embodiments, the benefit comprises a reduction or amelioration of one or more symptoms associated with the Influenza. In some embodiments, the method further comprises administering to the patient an effective amount of a pharmaceutical composition comprising one or more digestive enzymes. 
     Also provided is a pharmaceutical composition comprising one or more digestive enzymes, wherein the one or more digestive enzymes comprise at least one lipase and at least one protease, and wherein the ratio of total proteases to total lipases (in USP units) ranges from about 1:1 to about 20:1 including 1:1, 2:1, 3;1, 4:1, 5;1, 6:1, 7:1, 8:1, 9:1, 10:1, 11;1, 12;1, 13;1, 14:1, 15:1, 16;1, 17:1, 18:1, 19:1 and 20:1 long with all values in-between. In some embodiments, the ratio of total proteases to total lipases ranges from about 4:1 to about 10:1 including 4:1, 5:1, 6:1, 7:1, 8:1, 9:1, and 10:1 along with all values in-between. In some embodiments, the pharmaceutical composition is lipid encapsulated. 
     Also provided is a pharmaceutical composition comprising at least one amylase, a mixture of proteases comprising chymotrypsin and trypsin, at least one lipase, and optionally papaya and/or papain. In some embodiments, the ratio of total proteases to total lipases ranges from about 1:1 to about 20:1 including 1:1, 2:1, 3;1, 4:1, 5;1, 6:1, 7:1, 8:1, 9:1, 10:1, 11;1, 12;1, 13;1, 14:1, 15:1, 16;1, 17:1, 18:1, 19:1 and 20:1 along with all values in-between. 
     The features and advantages described herein are not all-inclusive and, in particular, many additional features and advantages will be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the drawings, specification, and claims. 
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION 
     The present disclosure provides pharmaceutical compositions comprising one or more digestive enzymes and methods of using the same for the treatment and/or prevention of Influenza. The present disclosure also provides compositions comprising one or more digestive enzymes and methods of using the same as antiseptics, detergents, disinfectants, and sanitizers, e.g., as viricidal and/or viristatic compositions to kill or attenuate the influenza virus. The compositions described herein include one or more digestive enzymes, which are postulated to assist in the reduction, weakening, or eradication of Influenza virus, and thus to prevent contraction of Influenza; and/or to ameliorate gastrointestinal dysfunction or to enhance the normal gastrointestinal function, in order to prevent contraction of Influenza or to treat Influenza (e.g., improve or ameliorate the symptoms or reduce the time course of the infection). In addition, the pharmaceutical compositions can be utilized to enhance immune system response for individuals with compromised immune systems and/or to augment immune system functions is nonimmuno-compromised individuals, e.g., to assist in the prevention or treatment of Influenza. 
     In certain embodiments, the pharmaceutical compositions can include one or more digestive enzymes, wherein the one or more digestive enzymes comprise at least one lipase and at least one protease, and wherein the ratio of total proteases to total lipases (in USP units) ranges from about 1:1 to about 20:1, including 1:1, 2:1, 3:1, 4:1, 5:1, 6:1, 7:1, 8:1, 9:1, 10:1, 11:1, 12:1, 13:1, 14:1, 15:1, 16:1, 17:1, 18:1, 19:1 and 20:1 along with all values in-between. In some cases, the ratio of total proteases to total lipases ranges from about 4:1 to about 10:1, including 4;1, 4;1, 6:1, 7:1, 8:1, 9:1, and 10:1 along with all values in-between. In some embodiments, the pharmaceutical composition is encapsulated, e.g., lipid-encapsulated. Enzyme preparations comprising one or more digestive enzymes useful for the methods described herein are disclosed in U.S. Ser. No. 12/386,051, incorporated herein by reference. 
     In some cases, a pharmaceutical composition for use herein comprises at least one amylase, at least one protease, and at least one lipase. In certain embodiments, the composition can comprise at least one amylase, at least two proteases, and at least one lipase. In certain embodiments the pharmaceutical composition includes multiple proteases, including, without limitation, chymotrypsin and trypsin. In certain embodiments, the composition can further include one or more hydrolases, papain, bromelain, papaya, celluloses, pancreatin, sucrases, and maltases. 
     The one or more enzymes can be independently derived from animal, plant, fungal, microbial, or synthetic sources. In some embodiments, the one or more enzymes are derived from pig, e.g. pig pancreas or avian “bird” proventriculus or small intestine. 
     One exemplary formulation for the prevention of Influenza or treatment of symptoms of Influenza is as follows: 
     Amylase 10,000-60,000 U.S.P 
     Protease 10,000-70,000 U.S.P 
     Lipase 4,000-30,000 U.S.P 
     Chymotrypsin 2-5 mg 
     Trypsin 60-100 mg 
     Papain 3,000-10,000 USP units/mg 
     Papaya 30-60 mg 
     Additional formulations comprising one or more digestive enzymes may be advantageous including formulations in which the ratio of total proteases to total lipases (in USP units) is from about 1:1 to about 20:1, including 1:1, 2:1, 3:1, 4:1, 5:1, 6:1, 7:1, 8:1, 9:1, 10:1, 11:1, 12:1, 13:1, 14:1, 15:1, 16:1, 17:1, 18:1, 19:1 and 20:1 along with all values in-between. In some embodiments, the ratio of total proteases to total lipases is from about 4:1 to about 10:1 including 4:1, 5:1, 6:1, 7:1, 8:1, 9:1, and 10:1 along with all values in-between. Such formulations are useful for the prevention of Influenza or treating symptoms of Influenza, or the enhancement of immune system functions. 
     The pharmaceutical compositions can be formulated in dosage forms for any route of administration, including oral, parenteral, IV, inhalation, and buccal dosage formulations. In certain embodiments, a dosage formulation may be administered by an oral preparation including, but not limited to, an encapsulated tablet, mini-tabs, microcapsule, mini-capsule, time released capsule, sprinkle, powder or other methodology. In one embodiment, the oral preparation is encapsulated using one or more lipids. Alternatively, the oral preparation may be encapsulated using enteric coating or organic polymers. A formulation may also be prepared using Prosolv® technology, direct compression, dry granulation, wet granulation, and/or a combination of these methods. 
     Fecal chymotrypsin level is a sensitive, specific measure of proteolytic activity, see, e.g. U.S. Pat. No. 6,660,831, incorporated by reference herein. Normal levels of chymotrypsin are typically considered to be greater than 8.4 U/gram. Decreased values (less than 4.2 U/gram) suggest diminished pancreatic output (pancreatic insufficiency), hypoacidity of the stomach or cystic fibrosis. Elevated chymotrypsin values suggest rapid transit time, or less likely, a large output of chymotrypsin from the pancreas. 
     For the fecal chymotrypsin test, a stool sample can be collected from each of the subjects. Each stool sample can be analyzed using an enzymatic photospectrometry analysis to determine the level of fecal chymotrypsin in the stool; in some cases the assay is performed at 30° C., see, e.g. U.S. Pat. No. 6,660,831, incorporated by reference herein. Alternatively, other methods, such as the colorimetric method, use of substrates, use of assays, and/or any other suitable method may be used to measure the fecal chymotrypsin levels. The levels of fecal chymotrypsin in the samples e.g., of individuals suspected of or diagnosed as having a compromised immune system, are compared to the levels of fecal chymotrypsin in normal or control individuals (e.g., individuals not suspected or diagnosed with a compromised immunes system), to determine if the individuals would benefit from the administration of a composition as described herein. 
     The nature of the human digestive tract creates challenges for the delivery of digestive enzymes to patients including the general population, those with compromised immune systems, or those with influenza. Multiple temperature and pH changes over the course of the digestive tract make specific delivery a necessity and a challenge. For instance, pH as low as 1 is encountered in the stomach, but rapidly increases to a more basic pH of 5-6 in the proximal small intestine. For example, generally the pH in the stomach is approximately 1.2, the pH in the duodenum is about 5.0 to 6.0; the pH in the jejunum is about 6.8, and the pH is about 7.2 in the proximal ileum and about 7.5 in the distal ileum. The low pH in the stomach which changes rapidly to a more basic pH of 5-6 in the proximal small intestines, calls for a specific delivery method depending upon where the enzyme is to be delivered. For veterinary applications, a specific delivery location may also be necessary, depending on the animal to be treated. 
     Delivery of digestive enzymes can also be challenging due to the rapid degradation and denaturing of enzymes at ambient room temperature, as well as the enhanced degradation and denaturing that can occur with high temperature, pressure, humidity and/or exposure to light. Moisture and heat together can quickly destabilize enzymes, reducing their effectiveness, and shortening shelf life, leading to inaccurate dosing. Denaturization or destabilization of the enzymes can reduce their effectiveness by reducing the dose of active enzymes to less than the amount needed for effective treatment. Alternatively, attempting to compensate for the denaturization or destabilization by increasing the dose to ensure an effective level of active enzyme, could risk an overdose or overfilling a capsule or other dosage form. To protect and stabilize the compositions from unfavorable conditions, the digestive enzymes may be coated or encapsulated in a continuous coating containing a crystallizable lipid. 
     Manufacturers of enzyme preparations have used enteric coatings to deliver lipases in individuals requiring administration of lipases, such as individuals with cystic fibrosis. 
     Coatings in the digestive/pancreatic enzyme preparations create a barrier to degradation and denaturation, and allow more accurate levels of active enzymes to reach the treated individuals. 
     For example, a lipid coating of this disclosure provides a significant barrier to moisture, heat, humidity and exposure to light by allowing for a physical barrier as well as one that prevents and or reduces hydrolysis. The coated enzyme preparations undergo less hydrolysis as a result of protection from moisture in the environment by the lipid coating. As a result of the present disclosure, pancreatic/digestive enzymes are provided which can tolerate storage conditions (e.g., moisture, heat, oxygen, etc.) for long periods of time thus enabling extended shelf life. The coating of the encapsulated enzyme preparation protects the enzyme from the environment and provides emulsification in a solvent without detracting from the abrasion resistance of the coating. 
     In some embodiments, the coatings on the digestive enzyme particle cores are preferably continuous coatings. By “continuous,” it is meant that the pancreatic/digestive enzyme is uniformly protected. The continuous coating of the fully surrounds or encapsulates the pancreatic/digestive enzymes. The encapsulation provides protection of the pancreatic/digestive enzyme from conditions such as moisture, temperature, and conditions encountered during storage. 
     As discussed, the encapsulation can provide controlled release of the digestive enzymes. The emulsification properties of the coating in a solvent allows for controlled release of the enzyme in the gastrointestinal system, preferably the region of the GI tract where the enzymes are to be utilized. In some embodiments, the dissolution profile may be about 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85 or 90 minutes. Dissolution profiles may be obtained using methods and conditions known to those of skill in the art. For example, dissolution profiles can be determined at various pH&#39;s, including pH. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. 
     “Encapsulate” as used herein means that the coating completely surrounds the pancreatic/digestive enzyme. In a population of encapsulated particles, encapsulated enzyme preparations may include contaminating or small portion of particles with a substantially continuous coating as long as the release profiles of the encapsulated particles are not significantly altered. A coated or encapsulated particle may contain one or more digestive enzyme particles enveloped in one coating to form one coated or encapsulated digestive enzyme particle in the coated or encapsulated digestive enzyme preparation. 
     The crystallizable lipid is any lipid or wax, lipid or wax mixture, or blend of lipid and/or waxes, where the crystalliable lipid forms a solid coating via crystallization at typical storage temperatures. The crystallizable lipid can be a vegetable or animal derived-lipid. In some embodiments, the crystallizable lipid is emulsifiable upon contact with physiological conditions and consists essentially of, or comprises one or more monoglycerides, diglycerides or triglycerides, or other components including, for example, emulsifiers found in hydrogenated vegetable oils. In another embodiment the crystallizable lipid is a non-polar lipid, for example hydrogenated soybean oil 
     As used herein, animal and/or vegetable “derived” lipids can include fats and oils originating from plant or animal sources and/or tissues, and/or synthetically produced based on the structures of fats and oils originating from plant or animal sources. Lipid material may be refined, extracted or purified by known chemical or mechanical processes. Certain fatty acids present in lipids, termed essential fatty acids, must be present in the mammalian diet. The lipid may, in some embodiments, comprise a Type I USP-National Formulary vegetable oil. 
     The digestive enzyme used in the present disclosure can be, for example, any combination of digestive enzymes of a type produced by the pancreas, including, but not limited to digestive enzymes from a pancreatic source or other sources. The scope of the disclosure is not limited to pancreatic enzymes of porcine origin, but can be of other animal, microbial, or plant origin as well as those which are synthetically derived. The digestive enzyme may be derived from mammalian sources such as porcine-derived digestive enzymes. The enzyme may include one or more enzymes, and can also be plant derived, synthetically derived, recombinantly produced in microbial, yeast, fungal or mammalian cells, and can include a mixture of enzymes from one or more sources. Digestive enzymes, can include, for example, one or more enzymes from more or more sources mixed together. This includes, for example, the addition of single digestive enzymes to digestive enzymes derived from pancreatic sources in order to provide appropriate levels of specific enzymes that provide more effective treatment for a selected disease or condition. One source of digestive enzymes can be obtained, for example, from Scientific Protein Laboratories (see Table 6). The digestive enzyme may be, for example a pancreatin/pancrelipase composition. In one embodiment, the digestive enzymes will comprise or consist essentially of 25 USP units/mg protease, 2 USP Unit/mg, and 25 USP Units/mg amylase. 
     In some embodiments, the digestive enzyme particles used as cores in the present disclosure include digestive enzyme particles where about 90% of the particles are between about #40 and #140 USSS mesh in size, or between about 105 to 425 μm, including 105, 125, 150, 175, 200, 225, 250, 275, 300, 325, 350, 375, 400, and 425 um or where at least about 75% of the particles are between about #40 and #80 mesh, or about 180 to 425 μm in size. Particles between #40 and #140 mesh in size pass through #40 mesh but do not pass through #140 mesh. The coated or encapsulated digestive enzyme particles in one embodiment of this disclosure may comprise less than about 35, 30, 25, 20, 15 or 10% of the particles which can be sieved through #100 mesh (150 μm). In some embodiments, the term “non-aerosolizable” refers to a coated or encapsulated enzyme preparation where less than about 20% or less than about 15% of the particles can be sieved through #100 mesh (150 μm). The encapsulated digestive enzyme preparation can be an encapsulated digestive enzyme composite where the digestive enzyme particles contain two or more enzymes. 
     The minimum amount of pancreatic enzyme present in the core can vary, and in some embodiments is at least about 5% active enzymes by weight of the coated enzyme preparation, but in other embodiments may be at least about 30%, or at least about 50% by weight. The maximum amount of pancreatic/digestive enzyme present in the composite can vary, and in some cases is at most about 95% by weight, and in other embodiments at most about 90%, 85%, 80%, 75% or 70% of the coated enzyme preparation. In other embodiments, the amount of pancreatic enzyme present in the composite is about 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 72.5%, 75%, 77.5%, 80%, 82.5%, 87.5%, or 92.5% by weight or anywhere in between. 
     The composition which contains the encapsulated digestive enzyme preparation or composite can be delivered as a sprinkle, powder, capsule, tablet, pellet, caplet or other form. Packaging the encapsulated enzyme preparations in an enzyme delivery system that further comprises single dose sachet-housed sprinkle preparations allows for ease of delivery, and accurate dosing of the enzyme, by allowing a specific amount of enzyme to be delivered in each dosing. Allowing for specific unit dosing of an enzyme preparation which maintains the enzyme activity within specific stability parameters in an enhancement over other sprinkle formulations, which are housed, in a multi-unit dosing form that allows for air, moisture and heat to depredate and denature the enzyme preparation. In a preferred embodiment the powder or sachet is housed in a trilaminar foil pouch, or similar barrier to keep out moisture and to protect the enzyme preparation from adverse environmental factors. 
     Further, in some embodiments, the lipid encapsulation methodology reduces the aerosolization of the enzyme preparation that may be caustic to an individual if inhaled through the lungs or the nose. The lipid encapsulation reduces aerolization and the potential for caustic burn, aspiration, and/or aspiration pneumonias in receivers and administrators of the enzyme preparation, thereby reducing the potential for illness in those already compromised by influenza or reduced immune system functionality, and leading to safer administration. 
     As used herein, the term “non-aerosolizable” will be used to refer to a coated or encapsulated enzyme preparation where substantially all of the particles are large enough to eliminate or reduce aerosolization upon pouring of the coated enzyme preparation compared to uncoated enzyme particles. For example, the term “non-aerosolizable” may refer to a coated or encapsulated enzyme preparation where at least about 90% of the particles are between about #40 and #140 mesh in size, or between about 106 to 425 μm, or where at least about 75% of the particles are between about #40 and #80 mesh, or about 180 to 425 μm. The term “non-aerosolizable” may also refer to a coated or encapsulated enzyme preparation where less than about 35, 30, 25, 20, 15 or 10% of the particles can be sieved through #100 mesh (150 μm). In some embodiments, the term “non-aerosolizable” refers to a coated or encapsulated enzyme preparation where less than about 20% or less than about 15% of the particles can be sieved through #100 mesh (150 μm). 
     The choice of suitable enzymes and of suitable lipid coatings, including choice of the type or amount of enzymes or coating, are guided by the specific enzyme needs of the individual to be treated. 
     Additives can be blended with a crystallizable lipid. Selection of the lipid(s) and additives will control the rate of release of the bioactive substance. In the case of the digestive and or pancreatic enzymes, the lipid can be chosen to release the bioactive substance in the area of the digestive tract selected for release to optimize treatment. 
     The disclosure further relates to the administering of the coated and/or encapsulated enzyme preparation in a sachet or pouch preparation for ease of delivery to children and adults. In some embodiments, the disclosure specifically relates to the administration of a coated enzyme particle preparation, housed in a sachet or pouch. This facilitates administration, including but not limited to, administration in food or drink, direct administration into the oral cavity, or administration directly into the GI system through an NG-tube, G-tube or other GI entrances or deliveries. 
     In some embodiments, each dose contains about 100 to 1500 mg of coated or encapsulated enzyme preparation, and each dose may contain about 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, 550, 600, 650, 700, 750, 800, 850, 900, 950, 1000, 1050, 1100, 1150, 1200, 1250, 1300, 1350, 1400, 1450, or 1500 mg of coated or encapsulated enzyme preparation. “About” can include 80 to 125% of the recited preparation. Each dose may also be plus or minus 10% of the recited weight. In one embodiment each does will have a protease activity of not less than about 156 USP units/mg plus or minus 10%. The protease activity may also be not less than about 100, 105, 110, 115, 120, 125, 130, 135, 140, 145, 150, 155, 160, 165, 170, 175, 180, 185, 190, 195, or 200 USP units/mg. 
     In other embodiments, the disclosure relates to methods of treatment comprising administering to a subject, at least two doses of a composition comprising a therapeutically effective amount of the coated digestive enzyme preparations for the prophylaxis or treatment or influenza. In certain embodiments, about 80% of the enzyme is released by about 30 minutes in a dissolution test performed at pH 6.0. In other embodiments, about 80% of the enzyme is released by about 30 minutes after the coated digestive enzyme preparations reach the small intestine. 
     In other embodiments, the disclosure relates to methods of treatment comprising administering to a subject, at least three doses of a composition comprising a therapeutically effective amount of the coated digestive enzyme preparations for the prophylaxis or treatment or influenza. In certain embodiments, about 80% of the enzyme is released by about 30 minutes in a dissolution test performed at pH 6.0. In other embodiments, about 80% of the enzyme is released by about 30 minutes after the coated digestive enzyme preparations reaches the small intestine. 
     Another embodiment of the disclosure relates to the improvement of delivery of enzymes to humans by reducing the use of excipients, extenders and solvents currently used in the preparations for delivery of digestive enzymes to humans. For example, the encapsulated digestive enzyme preparation may contain only one excipient, which increases the safety of administration by decreasing the chance of an allergic response. In one embodiment, the excipient is hydrogenated soybean oil. 
     The lipid coating surprisingly does not appear to be reduced or destroyed by HCl (hydrochloric acid) present in the stomach, thereby protecting the enzyme from degradation following administration until the enzyme preparation reaches its target region in the GI tract. Further the lipid coat reduces the exposure of the enzyme to attack by water, thereby reducing hydrolysis, and further protecting the digestive enzymes from degradation. In addition, an excipient containing only lipid can be used to coat or encapsulate digestive enzyme particles containing lipase. 
     The disclosure therefore relates to improvement of the delivery of digestive enzymes to humans or animals based specifically upon needed delivery times, and dissolution profiles. For example, in certain aspects of the disclosure, the rate of release and dissolution characteristics are unique to the lipid encapsulations of this disclosure 
     For prophylaxis of influenza or treatment of patients with influenza or immune compromised individuals who require delivery of protease enzymes for effective treatment, the lipid encapsulate can be modified to deliver the protease during an earlier transit time window, in the proximal small intestine, to optimize virion protein digestion. In another example, for elderly patients with slower GI transit times, still another release profile may be advantageous to deliver enzymes for effective treatment. The lipid and/or additive selection will be made to obtain enzyme release at later times after administration. In veterinary applications, still another release profile may be necessary. 
     The present disclosure also relates to methods of making the enzyme preparations by lipid coating and/or encapsulation of pancreatic and/or digestive enzymes. The methods comprise providing a crystallizable lipid, and coating pancreatic/digestive enzyme particles with the lipid, where the pancreatic/digestive enzymes comprise 5-90% including 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, and 90% along with all values in-between of the coated enzyme preparations by weight. In some aspects the uncoated pancreatic/digestive enzyme particles have a size range of about 105-425 μm including 105, 125, 150, 175, 200, 225, 250, 275, 300, 325, 350, 375, 400, and 425 um along with all values in-between. 
     In one embodiment, the disclosure relates to a method of preparing an encapsulated digestive enzyme preparation, the method comprising (a) screening uncoated digestive enzyme particles to obtain particles of a suitable size for encapsulation; and (b) coating the screened digestive enzyme particles with a crystallizable lipid to form coated or encapsulated digestive enzymes containing a core which contains the pancreatic/digestive enzyme and a coating which contains the crystallizable lipid. In some embodiments, the encapsulated digestive enzyme preparation is a controlled release digestive enzyme preparation, which may have enhanced flow properties. 
     Screening of the particles may include quality control steps to improve the activity, appearance or particle size of the digestive enzyme. For example, the particles may be analyzed to determine enzyme activity content, and/or visualized using chromatographic, microscopic or other analytical methods. The particles may also be screened to obtain particles of a suitable size for encapsulation by removing particles that are too fine or too large. For example, the particles may be sieved to obtain particles of a suitable size or more uniform size range for encapsulation. As a further example, the particles may be sieved through USSS #40 mesh and through USSS #140 mesh. Particles that pass through the #40 mesh but are retained by the #140 mesh are of an appropriate size range for coating or encapsulation. Particles may also be screened by sieving through USSS #140, #120, #100, #80, #70, #60, #50, #45, or #40 mesh, or any combination thereof. 
     In some embodiments, the lipid should be present in the preparation at a minimum amount of about 5% by weight of the encapsulated composite, preferably about 30%, and more preferably about 50% by weight of the encapsulated composite. The maximum amount of pancreatic/digestive enzyme present in the encapsulated composite is about 95% by weight of the composite, preferably about 90%, and more preferably about 85% of the encapsulated composite. The crystallizable lipid can be any lipid or lipid-derived material that creates a solid coating around the digestive enzyme substrate. This lipid coating releases the digestive enzyme in the GI tract. The lipid coating may be emulsifiable in the GI tract, releasing the digestive enzyme. 
     The crystallizable lipid can be derived from animal or vegetable origins, such as, for example, palm kernel oil, soybean oil, cottonseed oil, canola oil, and poultry fat, including hydrogenated type I vegetable oils and waxes. In some embodiments, the lipid is hydrogenated. The lipid can also be saturated or partially saturated. Examples of crystallizable lipids include, but are not limited to, monoglycerides, diglycerides, triglycerides, fatty acids, esters of fatty acids, phospholipids, salts thereof, and combinations thereof. The crystallizable lipid can be an emulsifiable lipid. 
     “Emulsifiable lipids” as used herein means those lipids which contain at least one hydrophilic group and at least one hydrophobic group, and have a structure capable of forming a hydrophilic and hydrophobic interface. These chemical and/or physical properties, mentioned above, of an emulsifiable lipid permit emulsification. Examples of interfaces include, for example, micelles and bilayers. The hydrophilic group can be a polar group and can be charged or uncharged. 
     The crystallizable lipid which is emulsifiable is preferably a food grade emulsifiable lipid. Some examples of food grade emulsifiable lipids include sorbitan monostearates, sorbitan tristcaratcs, calcium stearoyl lactylates, and calcium stearoyl lactylates. Examples of food grade fatty acid esters which are emulsifiable lipids include acetic acid esters of mono- and diglycerides, citric acid esters of mono- and di-glycerides, lactic acid esters of mono- and di-gylcerides, polyglycerol esters of fatty acids, propylene glycol esters of fatty acids, and diacetyl tartaric acid esters of mono- and diglycerides. Lipids can include, for example, hydrogenated soy oil. 
     Any emulsifiable lipid may be used in the methods and products of this disclosure. In certain embodiments the emulsifiable lipid used will produce non-agglomerating, non-aerosolizing enzyme preparation particles. 
     The coating of the enzyme with the lipid allows for the enzyme to become more uniform in size and shape, but reduces the jagged edges associated with the raw enzyme, and allows for ease of administration and ease of manufacturing, as the flow properties associated with the covered enzyme will allow for the manufacturing machinery to easily fill the appropriate containers. 
     The inclusion of one or more additives with an emulsifiable lipid of the present disclosure is used to control emulsification of the coating and release of the enzyme. For example, the additive, triglyceride, can be blended with monoglycerides (e.g., an emulsifiable lipid), to control emulsification of the coating and thus control (e.g., decrease) the rate of release of the enzyme from the composite. As a further example, one or more additives, such as a diglyceride and a triglyceride can be blended with the emulsifiable lipid to control the rate of release of the enzyme. Hydrogenated vegetable oils may contain emulsifying agents, such as soy lecithin or other components. 
     Properties including mechanical strength, melting point, and hydrophobicity can be considered when choosing a suitable lipid coating for the digestive enzyme. Lipids having lower melting points or more polar, hydrophilic properties were generally less suitable for encapsulation because they resulted in product that would cake under accelerated storage stability conditions. Enzyme preparations made using, for example, hydrogenated soy oil, hydrogenated castor wax, and carnauba wax all demonstrated good pouring and no caking. 
     The wax can be paraffin wax; a petroleum wax; a mineral wax such as ozokerite, ceresin, or montan wax; a vegetable wax such as, for example, camuba wax, bayberry wax or flax wax; an animal wax such as, for example, spermaceti; or an insect wax such as beeswax. 
     Additionally, the wax material can be an ester of a fatty acid having 12 to 31 carbon atoms and a fatty alcohol having 12 to 31 carbon atoms, the ester having from a carbon atom content of from 24 to 62, or a mixture thereof. Examples include myricyl palmitate, cetyl palmitate, myricyl cerotate, cetyl myristate, ceryl palmitate, ceryl certate, myricyl melissate, stearyl palmitate, stearyl myristate, and lauryl laurate. 
     The solvent in which a lipid emulsifies can be an aqueous solvent. The aqueous solvent interacts with the hydrophilic groups present in the emulsifiable lipid and disrupts the continuity of the coating, resulting in an emulsion between the aqueous solvent and the lipids in the coating, thus releasing the bioactive substance from the composites. 
     Other additives for inclusion in the compositions described herein can be determined by those having ordinary skill in the art, and will be based on a number of features, including intended application, e.g., human vs. veterinary applications; desired release profile; desired pharmacokinetics; safety; stability; physical characteristics (smell, color, taste, pour, aerosilization). Suitable formulation ingredients, excipients, binders, bulking agents, flavorants, colorants, etc. can be determined and evaluated by methods known to those having ordinary skill. 
     In one aspect of the disclosure, the method comprises using the enzyme formulations to treat individuals that have an enzyme deficiency. The enzyme deficiency could be determined by any method used in determining or diagnosing an enzyme deficiency. In one aspect the determination or diagnosis may be made by evaluating symptoms, including eating habits, self-imposed dietary restrictions, symptoms of eating disorders and/or gastrointestinal disorders. In other aspects, the determination may be made on the basis of a biochemical test to detect, for example, levels or activities of enzymes secreted, excreted or present in the GI tract, and/or by determining the presence of a mutation in a gene or aberrant expression of a gene encoding one or more digestive enzymes. The enzyme deficiency may also be determined, for example, by detecting a mutation or aberrant expression of a gene encoding a product regulating or otherwise affecting expression or activity of one or more digestive enzymes. 
     The present disclosure also provides viricidal and/or viristatic compositions comprising one or more digestive enzymes for use as or in disinfectants, sanitizers, detergents, and antiseptics, e.g., in hospitals, nursing homes, nurseries, daycares, schools, work environments, public transportation and restroom facilities, to reduce and/or destroy influenza viruses present in such settings. The surfaces can be large (e.g., operating room tables, doors, changing tables) or small (e.g., medical devices, door handles); inanimate (tables) or animate (hands, e.g., detergents for hand-washing). The compositions include one ore more digestive enzymes, and optionally additives customarily used in antiseptics, disinfectants, sanitizers and detergents. The viricidal and viristatic compositions can be encapsulated enzyme compositions, as described previously, to increase stability and shelf-life. 
     Disinfectants are antimicrobial agents that are applied to non-living objects to destroy microorganisms, the process of which is known as disinfection. Disinfectants should generally be distinguished from antibiotics that destroy microorganisms within the body, and from antiseptics, which destroy microorganisms on living tissue. Sanitizers are substances that reduce the number of microorganisms to a safe level. One official and legal version states that a sanitizer must be capable of killing 99.999%, known as a 5 log reduction, of a specific test population, and to do so within 30 seconds. The main difference between a sanitizer and a disinfectant is that at a specified use dilution, the disinfectant must have a higher kill capability compared to that of a sanitizer. Very few disinfectants and sanitizers can sterilize (the complete elimination of all microorganisms), and those that can depend entirely on their mode of application. 
     The choice of the disinfectant to be used depends on the particular situation. Some disinfectants have a wide spectrum (kill nearly all microorganisms), whilst others kill a smaller range of disease-causing organisms but are preferred for other properties (they may be non-corrosive, non-toxic, or inexpensive). 
     The relative effectiveness of disinfectants can be measured by comparing how well they do against a known disinfectant and rate them accordingly. Phenol is the standard, and the corresponding rating system is called the “Phenol coefficient”. The disinfectant to be tested is compared with phenol on a standard microbe (usually  Salmonella typhi  or  Staphylococcus aureus ). Disinfectants that are more effective than phenol have a coefficient &gt;1. Those that are less effective have a coefficient &lt;1. For example, the Rideal-Walker method gives a Rideal-Walker coefficient and the U.S. Department of Agriculture method gives a U.S. Department of Agriculture coefficient. 
     To calculate phenol coefficient, the concentration of the test compound at which the compound kills the test organism in 10 minutes, but not in 5 minutes, is divided by the concentration of phenol that kills the organism under the same conditions. The phenol coefficient may be determined in the presence of a standard amount of added organic matter or in the absence of organic matter. 
     A detergent is a material intended to assist cleaning. The term is sometimes used to differentiate between soap and other surfactants used for cleaning where soap is a surfactant cleaning compound, typically used for personal or minor cleaning. 
     Detergents and soaps are used for cleaning because pure water can&#39;t remove oily, organic soiling. Soap cleans by acting as an emulsifier. Basically, soap allows oil and water to mix so that oily grime can be removed during rinsing. Detergents were developed in response to the shortage of the animal and vegetable fats used to make soap during World War I and World War II. Detergents are primarily surfactants, which could be produced easily from petrochemicals. Surfactants lower the surface tension of water, essentially making it ‘wetter’ so that it is less likely to stick to itself and more likely to interact with oil and grease. 
     Modern detergents contain more than surfactants. Cleaning products may also contain enzymes to degrade protein-based stains, bleaches to de-color stains and add power to cleaning agents, and blue dyes to counter yellowing. Like soaps, detergents have hydrophobic or water-hating molecular chains and hydrophilic or water-loving components. The hydrophobic hydrocarbons are repelled by water, but are attracted to oil and grease. The hydrophilic end of the same molecule means that one end of the molecule will be attracted to water, while the other side is binding to oil. Neither detergents nor soap accomplish anything except binding to the soil until some mechanical energy or agitation is added into the equation. Swishing the soapy water around allows the soap or detergent to pull the grime away from clothes or dishes and into the larger pool of rinse water. Rinsing washes the detergent and soil away. Warm or hot water melts fats and oils so that it is easier for the soap or detergent to dissolve the soil and pull it away into the rinse water. Detergents are similar to soap, but they are less likely to form films (soap scum) and are not as affected by the presence of minerals in water (hard water). 
     Detergents, especially those made for use with water, often include different components such as Surfactants to ‘cut’ (dissolve) grease and to wet surfaces, abrasives to scour, substances to modify pH or to affect performance or stability of other ingredients, acids for descaling or caustics to break down organic compounds, water softeners to counteract the effect of “hardness” ions on other ingredients, oxidants (oxidizers) for bleaching, disinfection, and breaking down organic compounds, non-surfactant materials that keep dirt in suspension, enzymes to digest proteins, fats, or carbohydrates in stains or to modify fabric feel, ingredients that modify the foaming properties of the cleaning surfactants, to either stabilize or counteract foam, ingredients to increase or decrease the viscosity of the solution, or to keep other ingredients in solution, in a detergent supplied as a water solution or gel, ingredients that affect aesthetic properties of the item to be cleaned, or of the detergent itself before or during use, such as optical brighteners, fabric softeners, colors, perfumes, etc., ingredients such as corrosion inhibitors to counteract damage to equipment with which the detergent is used, ingredients to reduce harm or produce benefits to skin, when the detergent is used by bare hand on inanimate objects or used to clean skin, and preservatives to prevent spoilage of other ingredients. 
     There are several factors that dictate what compositions of detergent should be used, including the material to be cleaned, the apparatus to be used, and tolerance for and type of dirt. 
     Modern detergents may be made from petrochemicals or from oleochemicals derived from plants and animals. Alkalis and oxidizing agents are also chemicals found in detergents. The most used disinfectants are those applying: active chlorine (i.e., hypochlorites, chloramines, dichloroisocyanurate and trichloroisocyanurate, wet chlorine, chlorine dioxide etc.): active oxygen (peroxides, such as peracetic acid, potassium persulfate, sodium perborate, sodium percarbonate and urea perhydrate); iodine (iodpovidone (povidone-iodine, Betadine), Lugol&#39;s solution, iodine tincture, iodinated nonionic surfactants); concentrated alcohols (mainly ethanol, 1-propanol, called also n-propanol and 2-propanol, called isopropanol and mixtures thereof; further, 2-phenoxyethanol and 1- and 2-phenoxypropanols are used); phenolic substances (such as phenol (also called “carbolic acid”), cresols (called “Lysole” in combination with liquid potassium soaps), halogenated (chlorinated, brominated) phenols, such as hexachlorophene, triclosan, trichlorophenol, tribromophenol, pentachlorophenol, Dibromol and salts thereof); cationic surfactants, such as some quaternary ammonium cations (such as benzalkonium chloride, cetyl trimethylammonium bromide or chloride, didecyldimethylammonium chloride, cetylpyridinium chloride, benzethonium chloride) and others, non-quarternary compounds, such as chlorhexidine, glucoprotamine, octenidine dihydrochloride etc.); strong oxidizers, such as ozone and permanganate solutions; heavy metals and their salts, such as colloidal silver, silver nitrate, mercury chloride, phenylmercury salts, copper sulfate, copper oxide-chloride etc. Heavy metals and their salts are the most toxic, and environment-hazardous bactericides and therefore, their use is strongly oppressed or canceled; further, also properly concentrated strong acids (phosphoric, nitric, sulfuric, amidosulfuric, toluenesulfonic acids) and alkalis (sodium, potassium, calcium hydroxides), such as of pH&lt;1 or &gt;13, particularly under elevated temperature (above 60° C.), kills bacteria. 
     Antiseptics (from Greek αντ{acute over (ι)}—anti, ‘“against”+σηπτικóζ—septikos, “putrefactive”) are antimicrobial substances that are applied to living tissue/skin to reduce the possibility of infection, sepsis, or putrefaction. They should generally be distinguished from antibiotics that destroy bacteria within the body, and from disinfectants, which destroy microorganisms found on non-living objects. 
     A composition for use as a sanitizer, detergent, disinfectant, or antiseptic can, in some cases, be diluted in a suitable diluent such as saline, phosphate buffered solutions, and other pH stabilized aqueous solutions, and can be used in combination with other sanitizers, detergents, disinfectants, or antiseptics, such as alcohols, quaternary ammonium compounds, boric acid, chlorhexidine gluconate, iodine, octenidine dihydrochloride, and sodium chloride. 
     Recent USDA Studies in Swine 
     Recent experimental test results from the Unites States Department of Agriculture serve to verify the efficacy of porcine intestinal immune systems against various H1N1 and other influenza diseases. 
     Experiment 1: 
     Four Pig Pathogenesis Study with the 2009 A/H1N1 Influenza A Virus. 
     Purpose of Study: 
     An important concern is to address whether meat, blood and tissue from pigs infected with the new 2009 H1N1 Influenza A Virus is free of infectious virus. 
     Experiment: 
     Four 5-week-old cross-bred pigs from a herd free of swine influenza virus (SIV) and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) were housed in containment facilities and cared for in compliance with the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the National Animal Disease Center (NADC). 
     Pigs were inoculated intra-tracheally with an infective dose of the 2009 HIN1 Influenza A Virus isolated from persons in California (A/CA/04/2009) obtained from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 
     Pigs were observed daily for clinical signs of disease. Nasal swabs were taken on 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 days post infection (dpi) to evaluate nasal shedding. Pigs were humanely euthanized on 5 dpi, which is considered the peak of infection in the NADC porcine SIV challenge model, to evaluate lung lesions and viral load in the lung and tissues. Fresh samples were taken from lung, tonsil, inguinal lymph node, liver, spleen, kidney, skeletal muscle (ham), and colon contents (feces), and examined using both real time RT-PCR and virus isolation (VI) techniques, which are the most sensitive and specific tools to detect the presence of viral nucleic acid and live virus, respectively. 
     Results: 
     Tissues outside the respiratory tract were found to be negative by VI at 5 days post infection. Only respiratory tract samples were positive by both methods (real time RT-PCR and VI). The inguinal lymph node from one pig and serum from two pigs were positive by real time RTPCR. However, lymph node and serum samples from all pigs were negative by VI. By contrast, all day 5 post infection nasal swabs and lung lavage fluids were positive by real time RT-PCR and VI, and lung tissue homogenates from all four pigs were positive by real time RT-PCR and 2/4 samples positive by VI. 
     Conclusion: 
     Live 2009 A/H1N 1 Influenza A Virus was only detected in the respiratory tract of infected pigs and the virus does not appear to spread and replicate in other tissues based on the day 5 post infection samples. 
     In addition, while not bound by theory, the efficacy of porcine enzymes may be enhanced by vaccinating pancreatic porcine donors with Trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) or Live attenuated influenza vaccine LAIV. Current test results suggest that vaccinated pigs demonstrate a pre-existing immunity to certain currently circulating H1N1 SW strains may protect against an outbreak virus. 
     Experiment 11 
     Recent Results from Studies with the 2009 A/H1N1 Influenza A VirusProject 1: Serologic cross-reactivity of serum samples from U.S pigs against the new 2009H1N1 influenza virus. 
     Purpose of Study: 
     An important concern is to address whether U.S commercial swine herds are susceptible to the 2009 A/H1N1 influenza viruses isolated from persons in California, New York, and Mexico. 
     Experiment: 
     Three 2009 A/H1N1 influenza A viruses isolated from persons in 2009 in California A/CA/04/2009), New York (A/NY/18/2009), and Mexico (A/Mexico/4108/2009) were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and grown in vitro (i.e., in a permissive cell line). 
     A standard hemagglutination inhibition (HI) test was used to investigate antigenic relatedness between these three 2009 A/H1N1 influenza A viruses and 19 H1 Swine Influenza Virus (SIV) strains known to be circulating in U.S. swine herds or with SW strains used for five licensed U.S H1N1 SW vaccines. Antigenic relatedness would be predicted on the basis of how well these antisera could inhibit the three 2009 A/H1N1 influenza A viruses from agglutinating (clumping) red blood cells. This test indicates the presence of antibodies that prevent the influenza virus from attaching to red blood cells and is therefore indicative that the animal may have protective antibodies. The CDC and USDA- APHIS -Center for Veterinary Biologics report an 8-fold or greater reduction in HI titer a significant reduction in cross reactivity between virus hemagglutinin variants. 
     Thirty-eight serum samples from pigs vaccinated with 19 H1 SIV isolated from U.S commercial swine operations between 1999-2008 (NADC H1 serum reference panel) were tested in the standard H1 test. The 19 H1 SIV in the NADC H1 serum reference panel used in this study represent all four phylogenetic (genetically characterized) clusters (α, β, γ, and δ) of all the endemic H1 swine influenza viruses known to circulate in the U.S. An additional 14 serum samples from pigs vaccinated with five different commercial products used to vaccinate pigs against H1 swine influenza viruses in the U.S were tested by the standard H1 test. 
     Results: Eleven of the thirty-eight serum samples from pigs inoculated with U.S H1N1 SW had a measurable H1 titer against the A/CA/04/2009 H1N1 influenza virus. The same experiment with the A/NY/18/2009 H1N1 influenza virus had similar results. In contrast, twenty two of the thirty-eight serum samples from pigs inoculated with U.S H1 SIV had a measurable H1 titer against the (A/Mexico/4108/2009) H1N1 influenza virus. Serologic cross-reactivity with anti-sera from 5 commercially-available SW H1 vaccines was additionally assessed by H1 with the three 2009 A/H1N1 strains. Cross reactivity was consistently low between the vaccine antisera and all 2009 A/H1N1 novel strains tested, although titers were slightly higher with the isolate from Mexico. This suggests that currently available vaccines may provide only limited protection against challenge with the novel H1N1. 
     Conclusion: 
     Results of this experiment suggest that pre-existing immunity induced by swine influenza viruses circulating in the U.S swine herd may not protect pigs against the new 2009 A/H1N1 influenza viruses presently circulating in people. Importantly, vaccines currently used to protect pigs in U.S swine operations against swine influenza virus may not be effective against the new 2009 H1N1 influenza viruses. 
     Limited cross-reactivity of serum samples from the NADC H1 SIV antiserum reference panel or sera from pigs vaccinated with commercial vaccines was demonstrated against the 2009 A/H1N1 influenza virus (A/CA/04/2009) isolated in California as measured by a standard H1 test. A second 2009 A/H1N1 strain from New York, A/NY/18/2009, was also used with the NADC H1 antiserum reference panel with very similar results to A/CA/04/2009. However, a third strain, A/Mexico/4108/2009, demonstrated broader cross-reactivity with the NADC H1 antiserum reference panel. This was especially apparent in the Hly phylogenetic cluster. The cross-reactivity with the Hly phylogenetic cluster is important since this is the genetic group in which the HA from the 2009 A/H1N1 originated. This would suggest that pre-existing immunity to certain currently circulating H1N1 SIV strains may protect against the outbreak virus. However, the differences between the novel H1N1 isolates suggest that there may be biologic variation in host and/or virus properties responsible for the variation in serologic crossreactivity. 
     It remains unknown whether this variation would have any effect on protection from live challenge in pigs from circulating strains of the 2009 A/H1N1 from the human population. Serologic cross-reactivity with anti-sera from 5 vaccines was also assessed by H1 with the three 2009 A/H1N1 strains. Cross reactivity was consistently low between the vaccine antisera and all 2009 A/H1N1 novel strains, although titers were slightly higher with the isolate from Mexico. This suggests that currently available vaccines may provide only limited protection against challenge with the 2009 H1N1. 
     EXAMPLES 
     Proposed Experiments 
     Experiment 1—In Vitro Testing 
     Reactivity of A/H1N1 influenza A virus to uncoated pancreatic porcine enzyme dilutions in a pH neutral medium. 
     Purpose of Study 
     To address the efficacy of uncoated pancreatic porcine enzymes in eradicating or inhibiting the spread of various strains of A/H1N1 influenza virus by measuring the degradation in viral RNA integrity following exposure to an enzymatic preparation. 
     Experiment: 
     Influenza virus type A, H1N1, isolated from persons in various time periods and geographic locations will be obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or World Health Organization (WHO) and grown in vitro (i.e., in a permissive cell line). Appropriate viral containment facilities will be employed. 
     A/H1N1 virus will be grown in culture using infection into an appropriate cell host such as MDCK anchorage dependant cells cultures or CACO-2 cell lines. A/H1N1 viral particles shed into the culture medium will then be collected and the viral particle concentration determined using a real-time Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) based assay for a/H1N1 specific RNA. Porcine Enzyme Concentrate will then be added to a mixture of the viral particles prepared in standard cell culture growth media used with either of the above two named cell lines. Various dilutions will be prepared including 1:25, 1:50, 1:100, 1:200. Materials will be incubated for a period of time ranging from 30 minutes to 6 hours at 37 C. Virus particles will then be separated from the Enzyme preparation, reconstituted in growth medium and plated onto the CACO-2 or MDCK cell lines. Cells will be allowed to grow and titer of released viral particles over a period of 3 days will be determined. Controls will be prepared by exposing A/H1N1 viral particles to phosphate buffered saline solution at 37 C for identical times. Control particles will then be prepared and plated as per experimentally treated virus cultures. 
     Samples at 12 hour periods over the course of 3 days will be assayed using laboratory diagnostic testing for the presence of influenza viruses in the specimens. In addition to utilization of a Real-time Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction based assay (rRT-PCR) that has been shown capable of detecting the A/H1N1 specific RNA, other tests may be used including direct antigen detection tests such as ELISA based assays for viral antigens and virus isolation in cell culture may be used. 
     Other rRT-PCR assays such as laboratory developed tests, not approved by FDA, may also be able to detect novel influenza A (H1N1) viruses. Public health laboratories in the U.S. are currently able to perform the CDC rRT-PCR Swine Flu Panel assay. 
     Anticipated Results: 
     Replication of A/H1N1 in a permissive cell line should be inhibited (static), reduced or eradicated (-cidal) by exposure to the pancreatic porcine enzyme dilutions as compared to control samples. 
     Experiment 2—In Vivo Testing 
     Effectiveness of coated pancreatic porcine enzyme on A/H1N1 influenza A virus symptoms or viral load in humans. 
     Purpose of Study 
     To address the efficacy of coated pancreatic porcine enzymes in eradicating or decreasing the symptoms or viral load of A/H1N1 influenza virus. 
     Experiment: 
     Candidate test subjects are those individuals who exhibit symptoms of A/H1N1 influenza A viruses and meet other test inclusion or exclusion criteria will be tested for presence of the virus using rapid A/H1N1 testing. Test Groups may be selected by age including infant and elderly, general health including healthy subjects and immuno-compromised subjects, geographic location, or other selection/exclusion criteria. 
     Rapid influenza diagnostic testing is utilized to identify candidate test subjects in a clinically relevant time period. Rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) are typically antigen detection tests that detect influenza viral nucleoprotein antigen. The present commercially available test can provide results within 30 minutes or less. These assays may be referred to as “point-of care” tests since CLIA-waived RIDTs (not all RIDTs are CLIA waived) may be used in facilities with a certificate of waiver or in locations outside a central laboratory. Commercially available RTDTs can either: i) detect and distinguish between influenza A and B viruses; ii) detect both influenza A and B but not distinguish between influenza A and B viruses; or, iii) detect only influenza A viruses. None of the currently FDA approved RIDTs can distinguish between influenza A virus subtypes (e.g. seasonal influenza A (H3N2) versus seasonal influenza A (H1N1) viruses), and RTDTs cannot provide any information about antiviral drug susceptibility. 
     Once a positive result is obtained further swabs or test specimens are obtained from the test subjects for detailed laboratory analysis to validate positive test subject and isolate specific viral subtype(s). Laboratory tests may include direct antigen detection tests, virus isolation in cell culture, or detection of influenza-specific RNA by real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR). 
     Laboratory tests typically differ in their sensitivity and specificity in detecting influenza viruses as well as in their commercial availability, the amount of time needed from specimen collection until results are available, and the tests&#39; ability to distinguish between different influenza virus types (A versus B) and influenza A subtypes (e.g. novel H1N1 versus seasonal H1N1 versus seasonal H3N2 viruses). At the present time, there are only two FDA authorized assays for confirmation of novel influenza A (H1N1) virus infection, including the CDC rRT-PCR Swine Flu Panel assay. 
     Other rRT-PCR assays such as laboratory developed tests, not approved by FDA, may also be able to detect novel influenza A (H1N1) viruses. Public health laboratories in the U.S. are currently able to perform the CDC rRT-PCR Swine Flu Panel assay 
     Stool samples may be collected from the subjects both prior to the start of clinical testing and periodically during testing. This may especially important when testing immune-compromised individuals who may have low levels of chymotrypsin or other pancreatic secretions in their stool. 
     Coated Porcine Enzyme Concentrate will be administered to test subjects at appropriate doses with each major meal for a minimum of 3 dosings per day over a period of 7 to 10 days. Swabs or test specimens and, optionally, stool samples are collected on a daily basis for subsequent laboratory analysis over a clinically relevant time period such as 7 to 10 days. Patients will be observed for progression of symptoms, viral related sequelae and the presence of viral particles in collected samples over the course of treatment. 
     Placebos arc also administered to a control sub group of test subjects at the same time intervals and swabs or test specimens and optionally stool samples are collected on a daily basis for subsequent laboratory analysis over a clinically relevant time period such as 7 to 10 days. 
     Anticipated Results: 
     Administration of coated pancreatic porcine enzymes to test subjects positive for A/H1N1 should decrease the severity and/or duration of associated symptoms. Additionally, compared to placebo treated patients, there should be an accelerated decrease in detectable virus obtained from physiological samples. 
     The foregoing description of the embodiments of the disclosure has been presented for the purposes of illustration and description. It is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the disclosure to the precise form disclosed. Many modifications and variations are possible in light of this disclosure. It is intended that the scope of the disclosure be limited not by this detailed description, but rather by the claims appended hereto.