-
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022As a cause of respiratory tract infections in humans, influenza remains with high morbidity and mortality, with associated significant healthcare burden and increased...
As a cause of respiratory tract infections in humans, influenza remains with high morbidity and mortality, with associated significant healthcare burden and increased financial burden. Traditional Chinese medicine injections (TCMIs) combined with oseltamivir (TCMIs + oseltamivir) are the representative therapeutic strategies for influenza, which is a compliant with clinical applications in China. The aim of this study was to describe the comparative efficacy and safety of TCMIs + oseltamivir in patients with influenza, based on the current evidence. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, VIP information resource integration service platform databases, and the Chinese biomedical literature service system were searched to find randomized controlled trials where TCMIs + oseltamivir are the representative therapeutic strategies for influenza, from inception until October 2021, without language restriction. Two investigators independently screened eligibility criteria, extracted data, and appraised the risk of bias with the same criteria. We conducted a network meta-analysis using the Bayesian random method for each outcome and performed the sensitivity analysis, meta-regression, and Egger's and Begg's tests for the reliability and robustness of our results. Thirty-one trials including 2,893 participants proved eligible and reported on four TCMIs + oseltamivir oseltamivir. Network meta-analysis showed Yanhuning (YHN) +oseltamivir (MD = -1.7, 95% CrI: -2.5 to -0.88; SUCRA = 0.89; low certainty of evidence) in fever disappearance time, Tanreqing (TRQ) +oseltamivir (MD = -1.9, 95% CrI: -2.8 to -1; SUCRA = 0.97; low certainty of evidence) in cough disappearance time, and Xiyanping (XYP) +oseltamivir (OR = 5.9, 95% CrI: 3.1 to 11; SUCRA = 0.82; very low certainty of evidence) in the response rate to be more efficacious than oseltamivir alone with the best SUCRA. Based on the combined SUCRA value for primary outcomes, TRQ + oseltamivir is probably better in cough disappearance time, and XYP + oseltamivir and YHN + oseltamivir may be better in fever disappearance time than others. No significant difference in safety between the treatments. In patients with influenza, TCMIs + oseltamivir only partially improve flu symptoms. Overall therapeutic efficacy and safety are inconclusive, based on low to very low certainty of evidence. However, the safety remains uncertain, and TCMI treatments for influenza should be considered with caution. More high-quality studies examining the efficacy and safety of TCMIs are needed. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42021286994.
PubMed: 35935865
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.848770 -
Journal of Microbiology, Immunology,... Oct 2021The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of baloxavir with other anti-influenza agents or placebo in the treatment of influenza. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of baloxavir with other anti-influenza agents or placebo in the treatment of influenza.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane databases and clinical registration were searched from inception until February 15 2021 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Only phase 3 RCTs evaluating the usefulness of baloxavir in the treatment of influenza were included.
RESULTS
Three RCTs enrolling 3771 patients (baloxavir group, n = 1451; oseltamivir group, n = 1288; placebo group, n = 1032) were included. Compared with oseltamivir, baloxavir had an insignificantly shorter time to the alleviation of symptoms (mean difference [MD], -1.29 h; 95% CI, -6.80 to 4.21; I = 0%). In contrast, baloxavir had a significantly shorter time to the alleviation of symptoms than placebo (MD, -26.32 h; 95% CI, -33.78 to -18.86; I = 0%). Baloxavir was associated with a significant decline in influenza virus titers and viral RNA load compared to oseltamivir and placebo. Baloxavir was associated with a lower risk of any adverse events than oseltamivir (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.98; I = 0%) and placebo (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66-0.96; I = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this meta-analysis suggested that baloxavir is superior to placebo in the treatment of influenza in both clinical outcome and virological response. Moreover, baloxavir was found to have a better virological response than oseltamivir and to be as effective as oseltamivir clinically. Compared with oseltamivir and placebo, baloxavir appears to be a relatively safe anti-influenza agent.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Antiviral Agents; Child; Dibenzothiepins; Female; Humans; Influenza, Human; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Oseltamivir; Pyridones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Triazines; Viral Load; Young Adult
PubMed: 34020891
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmii.2021.04.002 -
Yonsei Medical Journal Jul 2017Peramivir is the first intravenously administered neuramidase inhibitor for immediate delivery of an effective single-dose treatment in patients with influenza. However,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Peramivir is the first intravenously administered neuramidase inhibitor for immediate delivery of an effective single-dose treatment in patients with influenza. However, limited data are available on intravenous (IV) peramivir treatment compared to oral oseltamivir for these patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
With a systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy of IV peramivir with oral oseltamivir for treatment of patients with seasonal influenza. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register were searched for relevant clinical trials.
RESULTS
A total of seven trials [two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five non-randomized observational trials] involving 1676 patients were finally analyzed. The total number of peramivir- and oseltamivir-treated patients was 956 and 720, respectively. Overall, the time to alleviation of fever was lower in the peramivir-treated group compared with the oseltamivir-treated group [mean difference (MD), -7.17 hours; 95% confidence interval (CI) -11.00 to -3.34]. Especially, pooled analysis of observational studies (n=4) and studies of outpatients (n=4) demonstrated the superiority of the peramivir-treated group (MD, -7.83 hours; 95% CI -11.81 to -3.84 and MD, -7.71 hours; 95% CI -11.61 to -3.80, respectively). Mortality, length of hospital stay, change in virus titer 48 hours after admission, and the incidence of adverse events in these patients were not significantly different between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
IV peramivir therapy might reduce the time to alleviation of fever in comparison with oral oseltamivir therapy in patients with influenza; however, we could not draw clear conclusions from a meta-analysis because of the few RCTs available and methodological limitations.
Topics: Acids, Carbocyclic; Administration, Intravenous; Administration, Oral; Antiviral Agents; Cyclopentanes; Guanidines; Humans; Influenza, Human; Odds Ratio; Oseltamivir; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28540991
DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2017.58.4.778 -
EClinicalMedicine Feb 2023Immune thrombocytopenia is an autoimmune disease characterised by decreased platelet count. In recent years, novel therapeutic regimens have been investigated in...
BACKGROUND
Immune thrombocytopenia is an autoimmune disease characterised by decreased platelet count. In recent years, novel therapeutic regimens have been investigated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of different treatments in newly diagnosed adult primary immune thrombocytopenia.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs involving treatments for newly diagnosed primary immune thrombocytopenia. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched up to April 31, 2022. The primary outcomes were 6-month sustained response and early response. Secondary outcome was grade 3 or higher adverse events. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022296179).
FINDINGS
Eighteen RCTs (n = 1944) were included in this study. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that the percentage of patients achieving early response was higher in the dexamethasone-containing doublet group than in the dexamethasone group (79.7% 68.7%, odds ratio [OR] 1.82, 95% CI 1.10-3.02). The difference was more profound for sustained response (60.5% 37.4%, OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.95-3.40). Network meta-analysis showed that dexamethasone plus recombinant human thrombopoietin ranked first for early response, followed by dexamethasone plus oseltamivir or tacrolimus. Rituximab plus prednisolone achieved highest sustained response, followed by dexamethasone plus all-trans retinoic acid or rituximab. Rituximab plus dexamethasone showed 15.3% of grade 3 or higher adverse events, followed by prednis(ol)one (4.8%) and all-trans retinoic acid plus dexamethasone (4.7%).
INTERPRETATION
Our findings suggested that compared with monotherapy dexamethasone or prednis(ol)one, the combined regimens had better early and sustained responses. rhTPO plus dexamethasone ranked top in early response, while rituximab plus corticosteroids obtained the best sustained response, but with more adverse events. Adding oseltamivir, all-trans retinoic acid or tacrolimus to dexamethasone reached equally encouraging sustained response, without compromising safety profile. Although this network meta-analysis compared all the therapeutic regimens up to date, more head-to-head RCTs with larger sample size are warranted to make direct comparison among these strategies.
FUNDING
National Natural Science Foundation of China, Major Research Plan of National Natural Science Foundation of China, Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation and Young Taishan Scholar Foundation of Shandong Province.
PubMed: 36578882
DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101777 -
Health Technology Assessment... 2003To establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of amantadine, oseltamivir and zanamivir compared to standard care for the treatment and prevention of influenza. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of amantadine, oseltamivir and zanamivir compared to standard care for the treatment and prevention of influenza.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases. Reference lists of identified articles and key publications. Relevant trials.
REVIEW METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomised evidence was undertaken to investigate the effectiveness of oseltamivir and zanamivir compared to standard care for treatment and prophylaxis use for influenza A and B. An additional systematic review of the effectiveness of amantadine for treatment and prophylaxis use for influenza A in children and the elderly was also undertaken. Economic decision models were constructed to examine the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of the alternative strategies for treating and preventing influenza A and/or B. This was informed by the systematic reviews outlined above and additional sources of information where required.
RESULTS
The systematic review of the treatment of influenza found that oseltamivir reduced the median duration of symptoms in the influenza positive group by 1.38 days for the otherwise healthy adult population, 0.5 day for the high-risk population, and 1.5 days for the children population. This compared to 1.26 days, 1.99 days, and 1.3 for the similar groups for inhaled zanamivir. The systematic review of the prevention of influenza found that the relative risk reduction for oseltamivir was between approximately 75 and 90% and approximately 70 and 90% for inhaled zanamivir depending on the strategy adopted and the population under consideration. For the economic model a base case was constructed that focussed primarily on the health benefits generated by shortening the period of influenza illness. This base case found that, compared to standard care, the estimated cost per quality-adjusted life year ranged from pound 6190 to pound 31,529 for healthy adults, from pound 4535 to pound 22,502 for the 'high-risk' group, from pound 6117 to pound 30,825 for children, and from pound 5057 to pound 21,781 for the residential care elderly population. The base case model included valuations of the health effects of pneumonia (and otitis media in the children's model) based on observed rates in the trials. However it does not include the cost of hospitalisations as only very limited data was available for the effects of antivirals on hospitalisation rates. As for mortality rates, deaths from influenza were rare in trials of neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs). Therefore, suitable data on mortality were not available from these sources. As avoided hospitalisation costs and avoided mortality are potentially important we also carried out sensitivity analysis that involved extrapolating the observed reductions in pneumonias in the NI trials to hospitalisations and deaths. In all four models the cost-effectiveness of NIs is substantially improved by this extrapolation. For prophylaxis, antiviral drugs were compared with vaccination as preventative strategies. In all cases the cost-effectiveness ratios for vaccination were either low or cost-saving. In the base case the cost-effectiveness of antivirals was relatively unfavourable, there were scenarios relating to the elderly residential care model where antivirals as an additional strategy could be cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS
The cost-effectiveness varies markedly between the intervention strategies and target populations. The estimate of cost effectiveness is also sensitive to variations in certain key parameters of the model, for example the proportion of all influenza-like illnesses that are influenza. The effectiveness literature that was used to inform the economic decision model spans many decades and hence great caution should be exercised when interpreting the results of indirect intervention comparisons from the model. Further randomised trials making direct comparisons would be valuable to verify the model's findings.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Decision Support Techniques; Humans; Influenza Vaccines; Influenza, Human; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 14609480
DOI: 10.3310/hta7350 -
Health Technology Assessment... May 2016Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are stockpiled and recommended by public health agencies for treating and preventing seasonal and pandemic influenza. They are used... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are stockpiled and recommended by public health agencies for treating and preventing seasonal and pandemic influenza. They are used clinically worldwide.
OBJECTIVES
To (1) describe the potential benefits and harms of NIs for influenza in all age groups by reviewing all clinical study reports (CSRs) of published and unpublished randomised, placebo-controlled trials and regulatory comments; and (2) determine the effect of oseltamivir (Tamiflu(®), Roche) treatment on mortality in patients with 2009A/H1N1 influenza.
METHODS
We searched trial registries, electronic databases and corresponded with regulators and sponsors to identify randomised trials of NIs. We requested full CSRs and accessed regulators' comments. We included only those trials for which we had CSRs. To examine the effects of oseltamivir on 2009A/H1N1 influenza mortality, we requested individual patient data (IPD) from corresponding authors of all included observational studies.
RESULTS
Effect of oseltamivir and zanamivir (Relenza®, GlaxoSmithKline) in the prevention and treatment of influenza: Oseltamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults by 16.8 hours [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.4 to 25.1 hours]. Zanamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults by 0.60 days (95% CI 0.39 to 0.81 days). Oseltamivir reduced unverified pneumonia in adult treatment [risk difference (RD) 1.00%, 95% CI 0.22% to 1.49%]; similar findings were observed with zanamivir prophylaxis in adults (RD 0.32%, 95% CI 0.09% to 0.41%). Oseltamivir treatment of adults increased the risk of nausea (RD 3.66%, 95% CI 0.90% to 7.39%) and vomiting (RD 4.56%, 95% CI 2.39% to 7.58%). In the treatment of children, oseltamivir induced vomiting (RD 5.34%, 95% CI 1.75% to 10.29%). Both oseltamivir and zanamivir prophylaxis reduced the risk of symptomatic influenza in individuals (oseltamivir RD 3.05%, 95% CI 1.83% to 3.88%; zanamivir RD 1.98%, 95% CI 0.98% to 2.54%) and in households (oseltamivir RD 13.6%, 95% CI 9.52% to 15.47%; zanamivir RD 14.84%, 95% CI 12.18% to 16.55%). Oseltamivir increased psychiatric adverse events in the combined on- and off-treatment periods (RD 1.06%, 95% CI 0.07% to 2.76%) and the risk of headaches while on treatment (RD 3.15%, 95% CI 0.88% to 5.78%). Effect of oseltamivir on mortality in patients with 2009A/H1N1 influenza: Analysis of summary data of 30 studies as well as IPD of four studies showed evidence of time-dependent bias. After adjusting for time-dependent bias and potential confounding variables, competing risks analysis of the IPD showed insufficient evidence that oseltamivir reduced the risk of mortality (hazard ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.65).
CONCLUSIONS
Oseltamivir and zanamivir cause small reductions in the time to first alleviation of influenza symptoms in adults. The use of oseltamivir increases the risk of nausea, vomiting, psychiatric events in adults and vomiting in children. Oseltamivir has no protective effect on mortality among patients with 2009A/H1N1 influenza. Prophylaxis with either NI may reduce symptomatic influenza in individuals and in households. The balance between benefits and harms should be considered when making decisions about use of NIs for either prophylaxis or treatment of influenza.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002245.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Adult; Antiviral Agents; Asthma; Child; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype; Influenza, Human; Neuraminidase; Oseltamivir; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Zanamivir
PubMed: 27246259
DOI: 10.3310/hta20420 -
Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy :... Feb 2022The aim of this study was to use a network meta-analysis (NWA) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of various neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) in reducing the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of this study was to use a network meta-analysis (NWA) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of various neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) in reducing the duration of influenza symptoms, and thereby, informing the selection of suitable therapeutic regimens for patients with influenza. We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing the clinical effects of four NAIs administered to patients with influenza and placebo. Relevant studies were found in the PubMed and Cochrane databases. Unpublished studies were collected from the ClinicalTrials.gov registry and through hand searching. We carried out NWA to compare the different regimens with each other and across subgroups of age and medical status (high-risk patients). A total of 58 two-arm studies were identified. Five regimens were efficacious in reducing the time to alleviation of influenza symptoms in all populations; this efficacy was comparable. No significant improvements were seen in combination therapy groups. The mean difference in the time to alleviation of symptoms ranged from 12.78 to 19.51 h. According to the summarized mean difference and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), peramivir (SUCRA = 82.6%), zanamivir (SUCRA = 64%), and oseltamivir (SUCRA = 55.1%) were the three top-ranking drugs for treating influenza. Zanamivir and peramivir were the preferred pharmacologic intervention among all investigated interventions based on the calculated "value preference of SUCRA." This study is a network meta-analysis to explore the therapeutic effects of NAIs in patients with influenza. Peramivir might be the best choice for reducing the time to alleviation of symptoms.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Enzyme Inhibitors; Guanidines; Humans; Influenza, Human; Network Meta-Analysis; Neuraminidase; Oseltamivir; Zanamivir
PubMed: 34840038
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiac.2021.11.014 -
Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi = Zhongguo... Aug 2022This study aims to explore the efficacy and safety of Lianhua Qingwen preparations combined with Oseltamivir in the treatment of influenza patients. PubMed, Cochrane... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This study aims to explore the efficacy and safety of Lianhua Qingwen preparations combined with Oseltamivir in the treatment of influenza patients. PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMbase, SinoMed, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP were searched for the randomized controlled trials(RCTs) involving the comparison between the influenza patients treated with Lianhua Qingwen preparations combined with Oseltamivir and those treated with Oseltamivir alone. Fever clearance time was taken as the primary outcome indicator. Clinical effective rate(markedly effective and effective), time to muscle pain relief, time to sore throat relief, time to cough relief, time to nasal congestion and runny nose relief, time to negative result of viral nucleic acid test, and adverse reactions were taken as the secondary outcome indicators. The data were extracted based on the outcome indicators and then combined. The Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias was used to evaluate the quality of a single RCT, and the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluations(GRADE) system to assess the quality of a single outcome indicator. RevMan 5.3 was employed to analyze data and test heterogeneity. Finally, 16 RCTs involving 1 629 patients were included for analysis. The Meta-analysis showed that Lianhua Qingwen preparations combined with Oseltamivir was superior to Oseltamivir alone in the treatment of influenza in terms of clinical effective rate(RR=1.16, 95%CI [1.12, 1.20], P<0.000 01), fever clearance time(SMD=-2.02, 95%CI [-2.62,-1.41], P<0.000 01), time to muscle pain relief(SMD=-2.50, 95%CI [-3.84,-1.16], P=0.000 2), time to sore throat relief(SMD=-1.40, 95%CI [-1.93,-0.85], P<0.000 01), time to cough relief(SMD=-1.81, 95%CI [-2.44,-1.19], P<0.000 01), time to nasal congestion and runny nose(SMD=-2.31, 95%CI [-3.61,-1.01], P=0.000 5), and time to negative result of viral nucleic acid test(SMD=-0.68, 95%CI [-1.19,-0.16], P=0.01). However, due to the low quality of the trials, the above conclusions need to be proved by more high-quality clinical studies. In addition, we still need to attach importance to the adverse reactions of the integrated application of Chinese and western medicines.
Topics: Cough; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Humans; Influenza, Human; Myalgia; Nucleic Acids; Oseltamivir; Pharyngitis; Rhinorrhea
PubMed: 36046914
DOI: 10.19540/j.cnki.cjcmm.20220512.501 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Oct 2009Neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) are stockpiled internationally for extended use in an influenza pandemic. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) are stockpiled internationally for extended use in an influenza pandemic.
PURPOSE
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of extended-duration (>4 weeks) NAI chemoprophylaxis against influenza.
DATA SOURCES
Studies published in any language through 11 June 2009 identified by searching 10 electronic databases and 3 trial registries.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind human trials of extended-duration NAI chemoprophylaxis that reported outcomes of laboratory-confirmed influenza or adverse events.
DATA EXTRACTION
2 reviewers independently assessed study quality and abstracted information from eligible studies.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Of 1876 potentially relevant citations, 7 trials involving 7021 unique participants met inclusion criteria. Data were pooled by using random-effects models. Chemoprophylaxis with NAIs decreased the frequency of symptomatic influenza (relative risk [RR], 0.26 [95% CI, 0.18 to 0.37]; risk difference [RD], -3.9 percentage points [CI, -5.8 to -1.9 percentage points]) but not asymptomatic influenza (RR, 1.03 [CI, 0.81 to 1.30]; RD, -0.4 percentage point [CI, -1.6 to 0.9 percentage point]). Adverse effects were not increased overall among NAI recipients (RR, 1.01 [CI, 0.94 to 1.08]; RD, 0.1 percentage point [CI, -0.2 to 0.4 percentage point]), but nausea and vomiting were more common among those who took oseltamivir (RR, 1.48 [CI, 1.86 to 2.33]; RD, 1.7 percentage points [CI, 0.6 to 2.9 percentage points]). Prevention of influenza did not statistically significantly differ between zanamivir and oseltamivir.
LIMITATIONS
All trials were industry-sponsored. No study was powered to detect rare adverse events, and none included diverse racial groups, children, immunocompromised patients, or individuals who received live attenuated influenza virus vaccine.
CONCLUSION
Extended-duration zanamivir and oseltamivir chemoprophylaxis seems to be highly efficacious for preventing symptomatic influenza among immunocompetent white and Japanese adults. Extended-duration oseltamivir is associated with increased nausea and vomiting. Safety and efficacy in several subpopulations that might receive extended-duration influenza chemoprophylaxis are unknown.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Disease Outbreaks; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Influenza A virus; Influenza, Human; Nausea; Neuraminidase; Oseltamivir; Risk Factors; Vomiting; Zanamivir
PubMed: 19652173
DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-7-200910060-00143 -
Health Science Reports Mar 2021Oseltamivir is recommended in the treatment of influenza illness in high-risk populations, including those with chronic heart and lung diseases.
BACKGROUND
Oseltamivir is recommended in the treatment of influenza illness in high-risk populations, including those with chronic heart and lung diseases.
OBJECTIVES
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the rate of use and effectiveness of oseltamivir in these groups of patients.
METHODS
The protocol for the systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019125998). Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched for observational studies and randomized controlled trials published up to 16 February 2020. Quality appraisal of final studies was conducted using GRADE guidelines. Data were extracted using a predeveloped template. Main outcomes measured included the rate of use of oseltamivir for influenza-like-illness and its effectiveness in reducing disease severity in patients with cardiopulmonary diseases. Outcomes measured for effectiveness were influenza-related complications (respiratory infections and asthma exacerbations), hospitalization rates, and time to freedom from illness. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2.0 tool for randomized trials and Cochrane's Risk of Bias in nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool for nonrandomized trials. Where data were available, pooled analyses were conducted. Dichotomous variables were evaluated using the Mantel-Hansel method. A random effect model was applied. Summary measures were reported as risk ratios where relevant.
RESULTS
Our systematic review identified nine studies. Oseltamivir use ranged from 25% to 100%. When oseltamivir group was compared to placebo, rates of respiratory tract infections reduced by 28% (RR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.59-0.90), hospitalization reduced by 52% (RR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.28-0.80) and median time to illness alleviation decreased by 10.4 to 120 hours. There was no significant reduction in asthma exacerbation rates.
CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review suggests that the use of oseltamivir is beneficial in reducing disease severity, however, its use in high-risk population remains suboptimal.
PubMed: 33614979
DOI: 10.1002/hsr2.241