Neuraminidase inhibitors for treatment and prophylaxis of influenza in children: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Shun-Shin M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2724601 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Neuraminidase inhibitors for treatment and prophylaxis of influenza in children: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Shun-Shin Matthew M Thompson Matthew M Heneghan Carl C Perera Rafael R Harnden Anthony A Mant David D
BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20090810
<h4>Objective</h4>To 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.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review and meta-analysis of data from published and unpublished randomised controlled trials.<h4>Data sources</h4>Medline and Embase to June 2009, trial registries, and manufacturers and authors of relevant studies. Review methods Eligible studies were randomised contro ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo review the clinical effectiveness of oseltamivir and zanamivir for the treatment and prevention of influenza A and B.DesignSystematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesPublished studies were retrieved from electronic bibliographic databases; supplementary data were obtained from the manufacturers.Selection of studiesRandomised 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 methodsThe 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).ResultsSeventeen 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.ConclusionsEvidence 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.
| S-EPMC161558 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Influenza virus is a pathogen that causes morbidity and mortality worldwide. Whereas vaccination is important for prevention of disease, given its limitations, antiviral therapy is at the forefront of treatment and also plays a role in prevention. Currently, two classes of antiviral medications, the adamantanes and the neuraminidase inhibitors, are approved for treatment. Given the resistance patterns of circulating influenza, adamantanes are not recommended. Within the US, two neuraminidase inhibitors are currently approved for both treatment and prevention, while worldwide there are four available. In this review, we will briefly discuss the epidemiology and pathology of influenza and then discuss neuraminidase inhibitors: their mechanism of action, resistance, development, and future applications.
| S-EPMC3838482 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionInfluenza in hospitalized intensive care unit (ICU) patients with respiratory failure is associated with 25% mortality, despite timely oseltamivir treatment. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of alternative neuraminidase inhibitor (NAI) regimens compared to standard of care in patients hospitalized for H1N1, H3N2, or B influenza.MethodsThe Cochrane collaboration searching methods were followed in Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Web of Science databases (2009-2019). Eligibility criteria were RCTs comparing different regimens of NAIs in hospitalized patients (at least 1 year old) for clinically diagnosed influenza (H1N1, H3N2, or B). Pre-defined endpoints were time to clinical resolution (TTCR), overall mortality, hospital discharge, viral clearance, drug-related adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events.ResultsSeven trials (1579 patients) were included. Two trials compared two regimens of oral oseltamivir therapy, and one trial compared two regimens of intravenous zanamivir therapy vs oral oseltamivir therapy. Four trials focused on intravenous peramivir therapy: two trials compared two different regimens and two trials compared two different regimens vs oral oseltamivir therapy. Overall, the different regimens were well tolerated, with no significant differences in AEs; nonetheless non-significant differences were reported among different regimens regarding TTCR, mortality, and viral clearance.ConclusionHigher compared to standard doses of NAIs or systemic peramivir therapy compared to oral oseltamivir therapy did not demonstrate benefit.
| S-EPMC7187665 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6797441 | biostudies-other
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC3123567 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The recommendation to provide inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) to pregnant women is based on observed protection against influenza-related morbidity in mother and infant. Non-live vaccines may have non-specific effects (NSEs), increasing the risk of non-targeted infections in females. We reviewed the evidence from available randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of IIV to pregnant women, to assess whether IIV may have NSEs. Four RCTs, all conducted in low- and middle-income settings, were identified. We extracted information on all-cause and infectious mortality and adverse events in women and their infants. We conducted meta-analyses providing risk ratios (RR). The meta-analysis for maternal all-cause mortality provided a RR of 1.48 (95% CI = 0.52-4.16). The estimates for miscarriage/stillbirth and infant all-cause mortality up to 6 months of age were 1.06 (0.78-1.44) and 1.11 (0.87-1.41), respectively. IIV was associated with a higher risk of non-influenza infectious adverse events, with meta-estimates of 2.01 (1.15-3.50) in women and 1.36 (1.12-1.67) in infants up to 6 months of age. Thus, following a pattern seen for other non-live vaccines, IIV was associated with a higher risk of non-influenza infectious adverse events. To ensure that scarce resources are used well, and no harm is inflicted, further RCTs are warranted.
| S-EPMC8707251 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review to assess the effectiveness and safety of Reduning Injection versus neuraminidase inhibitors in treatment of influenza.MethodsThe MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Chinese Bio-medical Literature and Retrieval System (Sinomed), China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform and ClinicalTrails.gov were systematically searched from inception dates to May 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exploring Reduning Injection alone or in combination with neuraminidase inhibitors in patients with influenza. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 and Stata 15.1. The qualities of the involved studies were assessed by the risk of bias according to the Cochrane handbook. The evidence quality of each outcome was evaluated by GRADEpro GDT.ResultsTwelve trials with 1,460 patients were included. The included studies had a certain unclear or high risk of bias. Reduning Injection appeared to be more effective in shortening the fever clearance time (MD: -16.20 h, 95% CI: -19.40 to -12.99, 7 trials, 814 patients, I2=94%, very low certainty), fever alleviation time (MD: -4.09 h, 95% CI: -4.22 to -3.96, 3 trials, 366 patients, I2=0%, low certainty), cough alleviation time (MD: -21.34 h, 95% CI: -41.56 to -1.11, 2 trials, 228 patients, I2=89%, very low certainty), fatigue alleviation time (MD: -31.83 h, 95% CI: -36.88 to -26.77, 2 trials, 270 patients, I2=0%, low certainty), sore throat alleviation time (MD: -28.66 h, 95% CI: -32.23 to -25.10, 1 trial, 150 patients, low certainty), and improving the total effective rate (RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.25, 10 trials, 1,074 patients, I2=76%, very low certainty). Besides, Reduning Injection seemed generally safe.ConclusionsThis study provided low or very low evidence indicating Reduning Injection may be effective in the treatment of influenza and might be safe. Further rigorously designed studies are needed to confirm the effectiveness and safety of Reduning Injection and support it as a recommendation for influenza.
| S-EPMC9068505 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: A rigorous and focused systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of individualised homeopathic treatment has not previously been undertaken. We tested the hypothesis that the outcome of an individualised homeopathic treatment approach using homeopathic medicines is distinguishable from that of placebos. METHODS: The review's methods, including literature search strategy, data extraction, assessment of risk of bias and statistical analysis, were strictly protocol-based. Judgment in seven assessment domains enabled a trial's risk of bias to be designated as low, unclear or high. A trial was judged to comprise 'reliable evidence' if its risk of bias was low or was unclear in one specified domain. 'Effect size' was reported as odds ratio (OR), with arithmetic transformation for continuous data carried out as required; OR > 1 signified an effect favouring homeopathy. RESULTS: Thirty-two eligible RCTs studied 24 different medical conditions in total. Twelve trials were classed 'uncertain risk of bias', three of which displayed relatively minor uncertainty and were designated reliable evidence; 20 trials were classed 'high risk of bias'. Twenty-two trials had extractable data and were subjected to meta-analysis; OR = 1.53 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.91). For the three trials with reliable evidence, sensitivity analysis revealed OR = 1.98 (95% CI 1.16 to 3.38). CONCLUSIONS: Medicines prescribed in individualised homeopathy may have small, specific treatment effects. Findings are consistent with sub-group data available in a previous 'global' systematic review. The low or unclear overall quality of the evidence prompts caution in interpreting the findings. New high-quality RCT research is necessary to enable more decisive interpretation.
| S-EPMC4326322 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo determine and quantify differences in efficacy between treatment regimens for brucellosis.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials assessing different antibiotic regimens and durations of treatment for human brucellosis.Data sourcesPubMed, CENTRAL, Lilacs, conference proceedings, and bibliographies with no restrictions on language, study year, or publication status. Review methods Search, application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality independently performed in duplicate. Primary outcomes were relapse and overall failure resulting from primary failure or relapse. Relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and pooled with a fixed effect model.Results30 trials and 77 treatment arms were included. Overall failure was significantly higher with doxycycline-rifampicin compared to doxycycline-streptomycin, mainly due to a higher rate of relapse (relative risk 2.80, 95% confidence interval 1.81 to 4.36; 13 trials, without heterogeneity). Results were consistent among patients with bacteraemia and complicated brucellosis. Doxycycline-streptomycin resulted in a significantly higher rate of failure than doxycycline-rifampicin-aminoglycoside (triple drug regimen) (2.50, 1.26 to 5.00; two trials). Gentamicin was not inferior to streptomycin (1.45, 0.52 to 4.00 for failure; two trials). Quinolones combined with rifampicin were significantly less effective than doxycycline combined with rifampicin or streptomycin (1.83, 1.11 to 3.02, for failure; five trials). Monotherapy was associated with a higher risk of failure than combined treatment when administered for a similar duration (2.56, 1.55 to 4.23; five trials). Treatment for six weeks or more offered an advantage over shorter treatment durations.ConclusionsThere are significant differences in effectiveness between currently recommended treatment regimens for brucellosis. The preferred treatment should be with dual or triple regimens including an aminoglycoside.
| S-EPMC2276295 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5930775 | biostudies-literature