-
The American Journal of Chinese Medicine 2020The aim of this research is to evaluate the clinical evidence of an herbal medicine (HM) treatment on influenza and describe the potential benefits and adverse events by... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
The aim of this research is to evaluate the clinical evidence of an herbal medicine (HM) treatment on influenza and describe the potential benefits and adverse events by reviewing all relevant randomized controlled trials. All papers published from 2010 to 2019 in all languages in six databases were searched, including all randomized controlled trials on adults and children, testing herbal medicine for treatment of influenza, alone or in combination with conventional antiviral therapy. The main outcome parameters of interest were total effective rate, time to resolution of fever, adverse events, complications, and duration of viral shedding. 25 trials of 3044 patients were included. Herbal medicine compared to placebo significantly reduced time to fever resolution by 4.96[Formula: see text]h (mean difference, [Formula: see text]4.96; 95% CI, [Formula: see text]7.11 to [Formula: see text]2.80; [Formula: see text]), herbal medicine compared to oseltamivir showed no significant difference (mean difference, [Formula: see text]1.82; 95% CI, [Formula: see text]6.08 to 2.44; [Formula: see text]), and herbal medicine plus oseltamivir combined treatment significantly reduced duration of fever by 7.84[Formula: see text]h compared to a single treatment with oseltamivir (mean difference, [Formula: see text]7.84; 95% CI, [Formula: see text]12.51 to [Formula: see text]3.17; [Formula: see text]). Herbal medicine compared to placebo showed a significantly better total effective rate (risk ratio, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.18 to 3.07; [Formula: see text]), herbal medicine compared to oseltamivir indicated significantly better effective rate (risk ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.29; [Formula: see text]), and combined treatment showed a significantly better total effective rate compared to a single treatment with oseltamivir (risk ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.36; [Formula: see text]). Regarding safety, no serious adverse events were reported in HM treatment. HM presented fewer adverse events compared to oseltamivir, but the difference was not significant (risk difference, [Formula: see text]0.04; 95% CI, [Formula: see text]0.09 to 0.00; [Formula: see text]), and the combined treatment did not increase adverse events compared to oseltamivir (risk difference, [Formula: see text]0.02; 95% CI, [Formula: see text]0.06 to 0.02; [Formula: see text]). Research findings show that herbal medicine treatments have beneficial therapeutic effects on influenza and could decrease duration of fever and improve total effective rate. In addition, herbal medicine plus oseltamivir combined therapy could increase the therapeutic effect compared to a single treatment with oseltamivir.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Female; Humans; Influenza, Human; Male; Oseltamivir; Phytotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33167671
DOI: 10.1142/S0192415X20500779 -
Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine... Oct 2014To justify the clinical use of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) in the treatment of influenza. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To justify the clinical use of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) in the treatment of influenza.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledgeln-frastructure Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database, Wanfang Database and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from the date of inception until January 1, 2013, for the literature on treatment of influenza with TCM.
RESULTS
A total of 7 randomized controlled trials were identified and reviewed. Of these trials, 2 compared a (modified) prescription of TCM with oseltacmivir and 5 compared a patent traditional Chinese drug with oseltamivir. Based on the Meta-analysis, compared to oseltamivir, the (modified) prescription had similar effect in defervescence [WMD = 5.66, 95% CI (- 32.02, 43.35), P = 0.77] and viral sheddingWMD = - 6.21, 95% CI (- 84.19, 71.76), P = 0.88], and the patent traditional Chinese drug also had similar effect in viral shedding [WMD = - 0.24, 95% CI (- 4.79, 4.31), P = 0.92] but more effective in defervescence [WMD = - 4.65, 95%CI (- 8.91, - 0.38),P = 0.03].
CONCLUSION
TCM has potential positive effects in the treatment of influenza.
Topics: Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Humans; Influenza, Human; Medicine, Chinese Traditional; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25417400
DOI: 10.1016/s0254-6272(15)30057-1 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Apr 2014To describe the potential benefits and harms of zanamivir. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To describe the potential benefits and harms of zanamivir.
DESIGN
Systematic review of clinical study reports of randomised placebo controlled trials and regulatory information
DATA SOURCES
Clinical study reports, trial registries, electronic databases, regulatory archives, and correspondence with manufacturers.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Randomised placebo controlled trials in adults and children who had confirmed or suspected exposure to natural influenza.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Time to first alleviation of symptoms, influenza outcomes and complications, admissions to hospital, and adverse events in the intention to treat (ITT) population.
RESULTS
We included 28 trials in stage 1 (judgment of appropriate study design) and 26 in stage 2 (formal analysis). For treatment of adults, zanamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms of influenza-like illness by 0.60 days (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.81, P<0.001, I(2)=9%), which equates to an average 14.4 hours' reduction, or a 10% reduction in mean duration of symptoms from 6.6 days to 6.0 days. Time to first alleviation of symptoms was shorter in all participants when any relief drugs were allowed compared with no use. Zanamivir did not reduce the risk of self reported investigator mediated pneumonia (risk difference 0.17%, -0.73% to 0.70%) or radiologically confirmed pneumonia (-0.06%, -6.56% to 2.11%) in adults. The effect on pneumonia in children was also not significant (0.56%, -1.64% to 1.04%). There was no significant effect on otitis media or sinusitis in both adults and children, with only a small effect noted for bronchitis in adults (1.80%, 0.65% to 2.80%), but not in children. There were no data to assess effects on admissions in adults and children. Zanamivir tended to be well tolerated. In zanamivir prophylaxis studies, symptomatic influenza in individuals was significantly reduced (1.98%, (0.98% to 2.54%); reducing event rates from 3.26% to 1.27%, which means 51 people need to be treated to prevent one influenza case (95% confidence interval, 40 to 103). In contrast, the prophylaxis effect on asymptomatic influenza cases was not significant in individuals (risk difference 0.14%, -1.10% to 1.10%) or in households (1.32%, -2.20% to 3.84%). In households treated prophylactically there was an effect on symptomatic influenza (14.84%, 12.18% to 16.55%), but this was based on only two small studies including 824 participants. Prophylaxis in adults reduced unverified pneumonia (0.32%, 0.09% to 0.41%; NNTB (number needed to treat to benefit) 311, 244 to 1086) but had no effect on pneumonia in children or on bronchitis or sinusitis in adults or children (risk difference 0.32%, 0.09% to 0.41%; NNTB 311, 244 to 1086).
CONCLUSIONS
Based on a full assessment of all trials conducted, zanamivir reduces the time to symptomatic improvement in adults (but not in children) with influenza-like illness by just over half a day, although this effect might be attenuated by symptom relief medication. Zanamivir also reduces the proportion of patients with laboratory confirmed symptomatic influenza. We found no evidence that zanamivir reduces the risk of complications of influenza, particularly pneumonia, or the risk of hospital admission or death. Its harmful effects were minor (except for bronchospasm), perhaps because of low bioavailability.
Topics: Adult; Antiviral Agents; Child; Humans; Influenza, Human; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Zanamivir
PubMed: 24811412
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g2547 -
Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi = Zhongguo... Apr 2017To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Lianhua Qingwen capsule for influenza. All reports of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on Lianhua Qingwen capsule treating... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Lianhua Qingwen capsule for influenza. All reports of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on Lianhua Qingwen capsule treating influenza were retrieved from database of CNKI, WANFANG DATA, VIP, PubMed, the Cochrane Library by February 2017. The studies were screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the data were extracted by 2 authors, the quality of the included RCTs was assessed, and meta-analysis was performed using Revman5.3 software. A total of 1 525 patients and 10 studies were included. The results of meta analysis showed that compared with oseltamivir, Lianhua Qingwen capsule was more effective in alleviating flu symptoms, including the time of headaches disappeared [SMD=-0.25,95% CI(-0.48, -0.01)], the time of sore throat disappeared [SMD=-0.53,95% CI(-0.72, -0.34)], the time of cough disappeared [SMD=-0.39,95%CI(-0.57, -0.21)], whole body aches disappeared [ SMD=-0.49, 95% CI (-0.78, -0.21)], the time of weak disappeared [SMD=-0.56,95%CI (-0.82, -0.29)], and the time of abatement of fever [SMD=-3.47,95%CI(-6.27, -0.67)]. Also, there were some statistical significant differences between the two groups except nasal congestion and the time of virus turning negative. Compared with Ribavirin, Lianhua Qingwen capsule was more effective in terms of the rate of temperature effect, [RR=1.53, 95% CI (1.24, 1.90)], the difference between the two groups was statistically significant. Compared with Ankahuangmin capsules, significant differences were found in terms of the he rate temperature effect [RR=1.37, 95%CI (1.19,1.57)]. Current evidence shows that Lianhua Qingwen capsule is more effective and safer than Oseltamivir, Ribavirin and Ankahuangmin capsules. Due to the low quality of the clinical research, the accuracy of this conclusion needs to be conducted to verify.
Topics: Capsules; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Humans; Influenza, Human; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29071849
DOI: 10.19540/j.cnki.cjcmm.2017.0044 -
The Journal of Antimicrobial... Jun 2017To review systematically the published literature evaluating neuraminidase inhibitor (NI) safety and effectiveness in situations of pandemic and novel/variant influenza. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To review systematically the published literature evaluating neuraminidase inhibitor (NI) safety and effectiveness in situations of pandemic and novel/variant influenza.
METHODS
We searched six online databases using comprehensive search criteria for observational studies and randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of NI treatment, prophylaxis or outbreak control in patients of all ages.
RESULTS
Overall, 165 studies were included (95% observational), which were generally of low methodological quality due to lack of adjustment for confounding variables. In studies reporting adjusted estimates in general populations, NI treatment appeared likely to be effective against mortality (primarily if administered within 48 h of symptom onset) and potentially effective in reducing pneumonia. NIs appeared effective in reducing secondary transmission when indicated for prophylaxis. Limited, low-quality data suggest NIs are likely safe in general populations and may be safe in pregnant women and children. Data are scarce regarding safety of NIs in adults and high-risk individuals.
CONCLUSIONS
Most included studies were observational, statistically underpowered and at high risk of reporting biased and/or confounded effect estimates. NI treatment appeared likely effective in reducing mortality (cause unspecified) and pneumonia in general populations, with increasing benefit when administered with 48 h of symptom onset. NI pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis is likely effective in reducing secondary transmission of influenza in a general population. Our evidence suggests NIs are likely safe to use in the general population; however, data for children and pregnant women are limited. Knowledge gaps persist in specific populations such as Aboriginals, high-risk individuals and the elderly.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Antiviral Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Clinical Trials as Topic; Disease Outbreaks; Enzyme Inhibitors; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Influenza, Human; Male; Middle Aged; Neuraminidase; Observational Studies as Topic; Oseltamivir; Pandemics; Pneumonia; Young Adult; Zanamivir
PubMed: 28204554
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkx013 -
BMC Infectious Diseases May 2011Antivirals play a critical role in the prevention and the management of influenza. One class of antivirals, neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs), is effective against all... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Antivirals play a critical role in the prevention and the management of influenza. One class of antivirals, neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs), is effective against all human influenza viruses. Currently there are two NAI drugs which are licensed worldwide: oseltamivir (Tamiflu®) and zanamivir (Relenza®); and two drugs which have received recent approval in Japan: peramivir and laninamivir. Until recently, the prevalence of antiviral resistance has been relatively low. However, almost all seasonal H1N1 strains that circulated in 2008-09 were resistant to oseltamivir whereas about 1% of tested 2009 pandemic H1N1 viruses were found to be resistant to oseltamivir. To date, no studies have demonstrated widespread resistance to zanamivir. It seems likely that the literature on antiviral resistance associated with oseltamivir as well as zanamivir is now sufficiently comprehensive to warrant a systematic review.The primary objectives were to systematically review the literature to determine the incidence of resistance to oseltamivir, zanamivir, and peramivir in different population groups as well as assess the clinical consequences of antiviral resistance.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE without language restrictions in September 2010 to identify studies reporting incidence of resistance to oseltamivir, zanamivir, and peramivir. We used forest plots and meta-analysis of incidence of antiviral resistance associated with the three NAIs. Subgroup analyses were done across a number of population groups. Meta-analysis was also performed to evaluate associations between antiviral resistance and clinical complications and symptoms.
RESULTS
We identified 19 studies reporting incidence of antiviral resistance. Meta-analysis of 15 studies yielded a pooled incidence rate for oseltamivir resistance of 2.6% (95%CI 0.7% to 5.5%). The incidence rate for all zanamivir resistance studies was 0%. Only one study measured incidence of antiviral resistance among subjects given peramivir and was reported to be 0%. Subgroup analyses detected higher incidence rates among influenza A patients, especially for H1N1 subtype influenza. Considerable heterogeneity between studies precluded definite inferences about subgroup results for immunocompromised patients, in-patients, and children. A meta-analysis of 4 studies reporting association between oseltamivir-resistance and pneumonia yielded a statistically significant risk ratio of 4.2 (95% CI 1.3 to 13.1, p = 0.02). Oseltamivir-resistance was not statistically significantly associated with other clinical complications and symptoms.
CONCLUSION
Our results demonstrate that that a substantial number of patients may become oseltamivir-resistant as a result of oseltamivir use, and that oseltamivir resistance may be significantly associated with pneumonia. In contrast, zanamivir resistance has been rarely reported to date.
Topics: Drug Resistance, Viral; Enzyme Inhibitors; Humans; Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype; Influenza, Human; Neuraminidase; Viral Proteins
PubMed: 21592407
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-11-134 -
Health Technology Assessment... Nov 2009To evaluate the clinical effectiveness (including adverse events) and cost-effectiveness of antivirals for the treatment of naturally acquired influenza for 'at-risk'... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the clinical effectiveness (including adverse events) and cost-effectiveness of antivirals for the treatment of naturally acquired influenza for 'at-risk' and otherwise healthy populations.
DATA SOURCES
Eleven electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Pascal, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Health Technology Assessment Database) were searched from October 2001 to November 2007. A supplementary search was undertaken in June 2008 for information relating to drug resistance during the 2007-8 influenza season.
REVIEW METHODS
Systematic reviews of the evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antivirals for the treatment of influenza were undertaken. Twenty-nine randomised controlled trials comparing antivirals with each other, placebo, or best symptomatic care were included in the evaluation of clinical effectiveness in patients presenting with an influenza-like illness (ILI). Primary outcomes were measures of symptom duration (median time to alleviation of symptoms and median time to return to normal activity). Incidence of complications, mortality, hospitalisations, antibiotic use (as a surrogate for complications) and adverse events was also assessed. In addition, an independent decision model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of antiviral treatment from the perspective of the UK NHS.
RESULTS
Amantadine was excluded at an early stage, owing to a lack of any new trials that met the inclusion criteria and the limitations of the existing evidence. The review therefore focused on the neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) oseltamivir and zanamivir, both of which were found to be effective in reducing symptom duration (zanamavir by 0.5-1.0 days and oseltamivir by 0.5-1.5 days). However, the effect sizes were often small and unlikely to be clinically significant in many cases, particularly in healthy adults. For the at-risk subgroups, effect sizes for differences in symptom duration were generally larger, and potentially more clinically significant, than those seen in healthy adults (median duration of symptoms reduced by 1-2 days with zanamivir and 0.50-0.75 days with oseltamivir). However, there was greater uncertainty around these results, with estimates often failing to reach statistical significance. The most consistent data and strongest evidence related to antibiotic use, with both zanamivir and oseltamivir resulting in statistically significant reductions in antibiotic use. In general, the estimates from the cost-effectiveness model were more favourable in at-risk populations (including adults and children with comorbid conditions and the elderly) compared with otherwise healthy populations. Zanamivir was the optimal NI treatment in each of the at-risk populations considered, and oseltamivir was optimal for healthy populations (both adults and children).
CONCLUSIONS
The clinical effectiveness data for population subgroups used to inform the multiparameter evidence synthesis and cost-effectiveness modelling were, in places, limited and this should be borne in mind when interpreting the findings of this review. Trials were often not designed to determine clinical effectiveness in population subgroups and hence, although the direction of effect was clear, estimates of differences in symptom duration tended to be subject to greater uncertainty in subgroups. Despite some concerns, the use of NIs in at-risk populations appeared to be a cost-effective approach for the treatment of influenza. Well-designed observational studies might also be considered to evaluate the clinical course of influenza in terms of complications, hospitalisation, mortality and quality of life, as well as the impact of NIs.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiviral Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Costs and Cost Analysis; Female; Humans; Influenza, Human; Male; Middle Aged; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 19954682
DOI: 10.3310/hta13580 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Sep 2009In publicly funded health systems with finite resources, management decisions are based on assessments of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The UK National... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
In publicly funded health systems with finite resources, management decisions are based on assessments of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence commissioned a systematic review to inform their 2009 update to guidance on the use of antiviral drugs for the treatment of influenza. We searched databases for studies of the use of neuraminidase inhibitors for the treatment of seasonal influenza. We present the results for healthy adults (ie, adults without known comorbidities) and people at-risk of influenza-related complications. There was an overall reduction in the median time to symptom alleviation in healthy adults by 0.57 days (95% CI -1.07 to -0.08; p=0.02; 2701 individuals) with zanamivir, and 0.55 days (95% CI -0.96 to -0.14; p=0.008; 1410 individuals) with oseltamivir. In those at risk, the median time to symptom alleviation was reduced by 0.98 days (95% CI -1.84 to -0.11; p=0.03; 1252 individuals) with zanamivir, and 0.74 days (95% CI -1.51 to 0.02; p=0.06; 1472 individuals) with oseltamivir. Little information was available on the incidence of complications. In view of the advantages and disadvantages of different management strategies for controlling seasonal influenza in healthy adults recommending the use of antiviral drugs for the treatment of people presenting with symptoms is unlikely to be the most appropriate course of action.
Topics: Adult; Antiviral Agents; Humans; Influenza, Human; Oseltamivir; Treatment Outcome; United Kingdom; Zanamivir
PubMed: 19665930
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(09)70199-9 -
Annals of Hematology May 2022Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is the most common clinical bleeding disorder with a high mortality rate and poor long-term survival quality in severe patients. There is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is the most common clinical bleeding disorder with a high mortality rate and poor long-term survival quality in severe patients. There is controversy on how to choose the appropriate treatment. We systematically reviewed 19 randomized controlled trials (including 2615 participants) from January 1, 2015, to April 20, 2021. These investigations compared multiple drugs or their combinations in the therapeutic dose range for the treatment of ITP. The primary endpoint was based on the proportion of patients who responded to these therapies. The efficacy of eltrombopag plus rituximab, avatrombopag, dexamethasone plus anti-HP, and dexamethasone plus rhTPO was significantly higher than placebo (OR: 46.66, 29.44, 2.66, 1.86) or dexamethasone alone (OR: 46.22, 29.01, 2.22, 1.40). Placebo, oral immunosuppressants, and dexamethasone plus oseltamivir were less effective than the other ITP therapies tested. Eltrombopag plus rituximab may be the best choice when starting treatment for ITP.
Topics: Benzoates; Dexamethasone; Humans; Hydrazines; Network Meta-Analysis; Purpura, Thrombocytopenic, Idiopathic; Rituximab; Thrombopoietin
PubMed: 35149911
DOI: 10.1007/s00277-022-04784-0 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2010Neuraminidase inhibitors (NI) are recommended for use against influenza and its complications in inter-pandemic years and during pandemics. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Neuraminidase inhibitors (NI) are recommended for use against influenza and its complications in inter-pandemic years and during pandemics.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of NIs in preventing and treating influenza, its transmission, and its complications in otherwise healthy adults, and to estimate the frequency of adverse effects.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 3) which contains the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1950 to August 2009) and EMBASE (1980 to August 2009).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised placebo-controlled trials of NIs in healthy adults exposed to naturally occurring influenza.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently applied inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We structured the comparisons into prophylaxis, treatment, and adverse events, with further subdivision by outcome and dose.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified four prophylaxis, 12 treatment and four post-exposure prophylaxis trials. In prophylaxis compared to placebo, NIs had no effect against influenza-like illnesses (ILI) (risk ratio (RR) ranging from 1.28 for oral oseltamivir 75 mg daily to 0.76 for inhaled zanamivir 10 mg daily). The efficacy of oral oseltamivir against symptomatic influenza was 76% (at 75 mg daily), and 73% (at 150 mg daily). Inhaled zanamivir 10 mg daily performed similarly. Neither NI had a significant effect on asymptomatic influenza. Oseltamivir induced nausea (odds ratio (OR) 1.79, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.93). Oseltamivir for post-exposure prophylaxis had an efficacy of 58% and 84% in two trials for households. Zanamivir performed similarly. The hazard ratios for time to alleviation of symptoms were in favour of the treated group 1.20 (1.06 to 1.35) for oseltamivir and 1.24 (1.13 to 1.36) for zanamivir. Because of the exclusion of a review of mainly unpublished trials of oseltamivir, insufficient evidence remained to reach a conclusion on the prevention of complications requiring antibiotics in influenza cases (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.37). Analysis of the US FDA and Japan's PMDA regulators' pharmacovigilance dataset, revealed incomplete reporting and description of harms preventing us from reaching firm conclusions on the central nervous system toxicity of neuraminidase inhibitors.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Numerous inconsistencies detected in the available evidence, followed by an inability to adequately access the data, has undermined confidence in our previous conclusions for oseltamivir. Independent RCTs to resolve these uncertainties are needed.
Topics: Adult; Antiviral Agents; Enzyme Inhibitors; Humans; Influenza, Human; Neuraminidase; Oseltamivir; Post-Exposure Prophylaxis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Zanamivir
PubMed: 20166059
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001265.pub3