1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Antiviral Medications for Treatment of Nonsevere Influenza : A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Importance

          The optimal antiviral drug for treatment of nonsevere influenza remains unclear.

          Objective

          To compare effects of antiviral drugs for treating nonsevere influenza.

          Data Sources

          MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Global Health, Epistemonikos, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from database inception to September 20, 2023.

          Study Selection

          Randomized clinical trials comparing direct-acting influenza antiviral drugs to placebo, standard care, or another antiviral drug for treating people with nonsevere influenza.

          Data Extraction and Synthesis

          Paired reviewers independently performed data extraction and risk of bias assessment. A frequentist network meta-analysis was performed to summarize the evidence and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Mortality, admission to hospital, admission to the intensive care unit, duration of hospitalization, time to alleviation of symptoms, emergence of resistance, and adverse events.

          Results

          Overall, 73 trials with 34 332 participants proved eligible. Compared with standard care or placebo, all antiviral drugs had little or no effect on mortality for low-risk patients and high-risk patients (all high certainty). All antiviral drugs (no data for peramivir and amantadine) had little or no effect on hospital admission for low-risk patients (high certainty). For hospital admission in high-risk patients, oseltamivir (risk difference [RD], −0.4%; 95% CI, −1.0 to 0.4; high certainty) had little or no effect and baloxavir may have reduced risk (RD, −1.6%; 95% CI, −2.0 to 0.4; low certainty); all other drugs may have had little or uncertain effect. For time to alleviation of symptoms, baloxavir probably reduced symptom duration (mean difference [MD], −1.02 days; 95% CI, −1.41 to −0.63; moderate certainty); umifenovir may have reduced symptom duration (MD, −1.10 days; 95% CI, −1.57 to −0.63; low certainty); oseltamivir probably had no important effect (MD, −0.75 days; 95% CI, −0.93 to −0.57; moderate certainty). For adverse events related to treatment, baloxavir (RD, −3.2%; 95% CI, −5.2 to −0.6; high certainty) had few or no adverse events; oseltamivir (RD, 2.8%; 95% CI, 1.2 to 4.8; moderate certainty) probably increased adverse events.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          This systematic review and meta-analysis found that baloxavir probably reduced risk of hospital admission for high-risk patients and may reduce time to alleviation of symptoms, without increasing adverse events related to treatment in patients with nonsevere influenza. All other antiviral drugs either probably have little or no effect, or uncertain effects on patient-important outcomes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations.

              The PRISMA statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors have used this guideline worldwide to prepare their reviews for publication. In the past, these reports typically compared 2 treatment alternatives. With the evolution of systematic reviews that compare multiple treatments, some of them only indirectly, authors face novel challenges for conducting and reporting their reviews. This extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement was developed specifically to improve the reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses. A group of experts participated in a systematic review, Delphi survey, and face-to-face discussion and consensus meeting to establish new checklist items for this extension statement. Current PRISMA items were also clarified. A modified, 32-item PRISMA extension checklist was developed to address what the group considered to be immediately relevant to the reporting of network meta-analyses. This document presents the extension and provides examples of good reporting, as well as elaborations regarding the rationale for new checklist items and the modification of previously existing items from the PRISMA statement. It also highlights educational information related to key considerations in the practice of network meta-analysis. The target audience includes authors and readers of network meta-analyses, as well as journal editors and peer reviewers.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Internal Medicine
                JAMA Intern Med
                American Medical Association (AMA)
                2168-6106
                January 13 2025
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China
                [2 ]Healthcare Big Data Research Institute, School of Public Health, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China
                [3 ]Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
                [4 ]Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
                [5 ]Department of Geriatric Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
                [6 ]Chongqing Municipality Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
                [7 ]National Clinical Research Centre for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
                [8 ]Center of Gerontology and Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
                [9 ]Clinical Nursing Teaching and Research Section, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China
                [10 ]Xiangya School of Nursing, Central South University, Changsha, China
                [11 ]Department of Geriatric, Zigong Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Zigong, China
                [12 ]Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
                [13 ]Department of Radiology, Shandong Provincial Third Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China
                [14 ]Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
                [15 ]School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
                Article
                10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.7193
                4643e95a-72b9-4711-9ba6-49d43ff0d1f7
                © 2025
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content314

                Most referenced authors2,658