Dataset Information

Effectiveness of neuraminidase inhibitors in treatment and prevention of influenza A and B: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To review the clinical effectiveness of oseltamivir and zanamivir for the treatment and prevention of influenza A and B. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES:Published studies were retrieved from electronic bibliographic databases; supplementary data were obtained from the manufacturers. SELECTION OF STUDIES:Randomised controlled, double blind trials that were published in English, had data available before 31 December 2001, evaluated treatment or prevention of naturally occurring influenza with zanamivir or oseltamivir (if given using the formulation and dosage licensed for clinical use), and reported at least one end point of relevance. REVIEW METHODS:The main outcome measures were the median time to the alleviation of symptoms (for treatment trials) and number of flu episodes avoided (for prevention trials). Three population groups were defined: children aged 12 years and under; otherwise healthy individuals aged 12 to 65 years; and "high risk" individuals (those with certain chronic medical conditions or aged 65 years and older). RESULTS:Seventeen treatment trials and seven prevention trials identified met the inclusion criteria. All trials included compared one of the drugs against placebo or standard care. Treatment of children, otherwise healthy individuals, and high risk populations with zanamivir reduced the median duration of symptoms in days respectively by 1.0 (95% confidence interval 0.5 to 1.5), 0.8 (0.3 to 1.3), and 0.9 (-0.1 to 1.9) for the intention to treat population. The corresponding results, in days, for oseltamivir were 0.9 (0.3 to 1.5), 0.9 (0.3 to 1.4), and 0.4 (-0.7 to 1.4). The effect of giving zanamivir and oseltamivir prophylactically resulted in a relative reduction of 70-90% in the odds of developing flu, depending on the strategy adopted and the population studied. CONCLUSIONS:Evidence from randomised controlled trials consistently supports the view that both oseltamivir and zanamivir are clinically effective for treating and preventing flu. However, evidence is limited for the treatment of certain populations and for all prevention strategies.

SUBMITTER: Cooper NJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC161558 | biostudies-literature | 2003 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of neuraminidase inhibitors in treatment and prevention of influenza A and B: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.

Cooper Nicola J NJ Sutton Alexander J AJ Abrams Keith R KR Wailoo Allan A Turner David D Nicholson Karl G KG

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20030601 7401

<h4>Objective</h4>To review the clinical effectiveness of oseltamivir and zanamivir for the treatment and prevention of influenza A and B.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.<h4>Data sources</h4>Published studies were retrieved from electronic bibliographic databases; supplementary data were obtained from the manufacturers.<h4>Selection of studies</h4>Randomised controlled, double blind trials that were published in English, had data available befor ...[more]

PMID: 12791735

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the effects of the neuraminidase inhibitors oseltamivir and zanamivir in treatment of children with seasonal influenza and prevention of transmission to children in households.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of data from published and unpublished randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesMedline and Embase to June 2009, trial registries, and manufacturers and authors of relevant studies. Review methods Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials of neuraminidase inhibitors in children aged </=12 in the community (that is, not admitted to hospital) with confirmed or clinically suspected influenza. Primary outcome measures were time to resolution of illness and incidence of influenza in children living in households with index cases of influenza.ResultsWe identified four randomised trials of treatment of influenza (two with oseltamivir, two with zanamivir) involving 1766 children (1243 with confirmed influenza, of whom 55-69% had influenza A), and three randomised trials for postexposure prophylaxis (one with oseltamivir, two with zanamivir) involving 863 children; none of these trials tested efficacy with the current pandemic strain. Treatment trials showed reductions in median time to resolution of symptoms or return to normal activities, or both, of 0.5-1.5 days, which were significant in only two trials. A 10 day course of postexposure prophylaxis with zanamivir or oseltamivir resulted in an 8% (95% confidence interval 5% to 12%) decrease in the incidence of symptomatic influenza. Based on only one trial, oseltamivir did not reduce asthma exacerbations or improve peak flow in children with asthma. Treatment was not associated with reduction in overall use of antibiotics (risk difference -0.30, -0.13 to 0.01). Zanamivir was well tolerated, but oseltamivir was associated with an increased risk of vomiting (0.05, 0.02 to 0.09, number needed to harm=20).ConclusionsNeuraminidase inhibitors provide a small benefit by shortening the duration of illness in children with seasonal influenza and reducing household transmission. They have little effect on asthma exacerbations or the use of antibiotics. Their effects on the incidence of serious complications, and on the current A/H1N1 influenza strain remain to be determined.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients' preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:RPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed. RESULTS:In total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%-100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%-99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI -0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502). CONCLUSIONS:Patients' preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019094438.

Project description:BackgroundThe "real" effect size of a medical therapy is constant over time. In contrast, the effect size reported in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) may change over time because the sum of all kinds of bias influencing the reported effectiveness is not necessarily constant. As this would affect the validity of meta-analyses, we tested the hypothesis that the reported effect size decreases over time. Furthermore, we tested three hypotheses that would explain a possible change.MethodsBecause of well established outcome measures, the lipid-lowering drugs Pravastatin and Atorvastatin (serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, LDL-C) and the anti-glaucoma drugs Timolol and Latanoprost (intraocular pressure, IOP) were chosen for this investigation. Studies were identified by a standardized MEDLINE search. RCTs investigating the above identified medications administered as monotherapy, and in defined dosages, were included. Publication year, baseline (= pre-treatment value in the treatment group of interest) and post intervention means, number of patients and the assignment to experimental or control group were extracted for each study.ResultsA total of 625 citations were screened; 206 met the inclusion criteria. The reported effect size of Pravastatin (change of reported effect size in five years: -3.22% LDL-C, P < .0001), Timolol (-0.56 mmHg, P < .0001) and Latanoprost (-1.78 mmHg, P = .0074) decreased over time, while there was no significant change for Atorvastatin (+0.31% LDL-C, P = .8618). Multiple regression analysis showed that baseline values were the most important influencing factor; study size or treatment group did not play a significant role.ConclusionThe effectiveness of medical therapies reported in RCTs decreases over time in three of the four investigated pharmaceuticals, caused mainly by baseline differences. We call this phenomenon "fading of reported effectiveness". Under this condition the validity of a meta-analysis may be impaired. Therefore we propose to observe this phenomenon in future meta-analyses in order to guarantee a maximum of transparency.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The value of neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) in reducing severe clinical outcomes from influenza is debated. A clinical trial to generate better evidence is desirable. However, it is unknown whether UK clinicians would support a placebo-controlled trial. A survey was conducted to determine the attitude of clinicians towards a clinical trial and their current practice in managing adults admitted to hospital with suspected influenza. METHODS:Senior clinicians (n = 50) across the UK actively involved in the care of patients hospitalised with severe respiratory infections and/or respiratory infection research were invited to participate in an on-line survey. Participants were asked their opinion on the evidence for benefit of NAIs in influenza, their current practice in relation to: a) testing for influenza; b) treating empirically with NAIs; and c) when influenza infection is virolologically confirmed, prescribing NAIs. RESULTS:Thirty-five (70%) of 50 clinicians completed the survey. Respondents were drawn mainly from infectious diseases, intensive care and respiratory medicine. Only 11 (31%) of 35 respondents agreed that NAIs are effective at reducing influenza mortality; 14 (40%) disagreed, 10 (28.6%) neither agreed nor disagreed. When managing adults admitted to non-ICU wards with a respiratory infection during an influenza season, 15 (51.7%) clinicians indicated they would usually perform a test for influenza in greater than 60% of patients but only 9 (31%) would treat empirically with NAIs in greater than 60% of patients. Few clinicians would either test or empirically treat patients presenting with other (non-respiratory infection related) diagnoses. If influenza infection is confirmed, 17 (64.5%) clinicians would prescribe NAIs in greater than 80% of patients with a respiratory infection treated on non-ICU wards Thirty-one (89%) clinicians agreed that a placebo-controlled clinical trial should be conducted and 29 (85%) would participate in such a trial. CONCLUSIONS:There is strong support from UK clinicians for a placebo-controlled trial of NAI treatment in adults hospitalised with suspected influenza. Current variation in medical opinion and clinical practice demonstrates collective equipoise, supporting ethical justification for a trial. Low use of NAIs in the UK suggests randomisation of treatment would not substantially divert patients towards placebo.

Project description:BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a significant public health problem in Western industrialised countries and has been reported to affect up to 80% of adults at some stage in their lives. It is associated with high health care utilisation costs, disability, work loss and restriction of social activities. An intervention of foot orthoses or insoles has been suggested to reduce the risk of developing LBP and be an effective treatment strategy for people suffering from LBP. However, despite the common usage of orthoses and insoles, there is a lack of clear guidelines for their use in relation to LBP. The aim of this review is to investigate the effectiveness of foot orthoses and insoles in the prevention and treatment of non specific LBP.MethodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library was conducted in May 2013. Two authors independently reviewed and selected relevant randomised controlled trials. Quality was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Downs and Black Checklist. Meta-analysis of study data were conducted where possible.ResultsEleven trials were included: five trials investigated the treatment of LBP (n=293) and six trials examined the prevention of LBP (n=2379) through the use of foot orthoses or insoles. Meta-analysis showed no significant effect in favour of the foot orthoses or insoles for either the treatment trials (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.74, CI 95%: -1.5 to 0.03) or the prevention trials (relative risk (RR) 0.78, CI 95%: 0.50 to 1.23).ConclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to support the use of insoles or foot orthoses as either a treatment for LBP or in the prevention of LBP. The small number, moderate methodological quality and the high heterogeneity of the available trials reduce the strength of current findings. Future research should concentrate on identification of LBP patients most suited to foot orthoses or insole treatment, as there is some evidence that trials structured along these lines have a greater effect on reducing LBP.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of neuraminidase inhibitors in treatment and prevention of influenza A and B: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.

Publications

Effectiveness of neuraminidase inhibitors in treatment and prevention of influenza A and B: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets