Search

Objectives: The ALIC 4 E trial has shown that oseltamivir reduces recovery time while increasing the risk of nausea. This secondary analysis of the ALIC 4 E trial aimed to determine the gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with adding oseltamivir to usual primary care in patients presenting with influenza-like illness (ILI)., Methods: Patients with ILI were recruited during the influenza season (2015-2018) in 15 European countries. Patients were assigned to usual care with or without oseltamivir through stratified randomization (age, severity, comorbidities, and symptom onset). Patients' health status was valued with the EQ-5D and visual analog scale (VAS) for up to 28 days. Average EQ-5D and VAS scores over time were estimated for both treatment groups using one-inflated beta regression in children (<13 years old) and adults (≥13 years old). QALY gain was calculated as the difference between the groups. Sensitivity analysis considered the value set to convert EQ-5D answers to summary scores and the follow-up period., Results: In adults, oseltamivir gained 0.0006 (95% confidence interval 0.0002-0.0010) QALYs, whereas no statistically significant gain was found in children (14-day follow-up, EQ-5D). QALY gains were statistically significant in patients aged ≥65 years, patients without relevant comorbidities, or patients experiencing symptoms for ≤48 hours. Using VAS and accounting for 28-day follow-up resulted in higher QALY gain., Conclusions: QALY gain owing to oseltamivir is limited compared with other diseases, and its clinical meaningfulness remains to be determined. Further analysis is needed to evaluate whether QALY gain and its impact on ILI treatment cost render oseltamivir cost-effective., (Copyright © 2021 ISPOR–The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Recovery time and treatment effect of oseltamivir in influenza-like illness (ILI) differs between patient groups. A point-of-care test to better predict ILI duration and identify patients who are most likely to benefit from oseltamivir treatment would aid prescribing decisions in primary care. This study aimed to investigate whether a C-reactive protein (CRP) concentration of ≥30 mg/L can predict (1) ILI disease duration, and (2) which patients are most likely to benefit from oseltamivir treatment., Design: Secondary analysis of randomized controlled trial data., Setting: Primary care in Lithuania, Sweden and Norway during three consecutive influenza seasons 2016-2018., Subjects: A total of 277 ILI patients aged one year or older and symptom duration of ≤72 h., Main Outcome Measures: Capillary blood CRP concentration at baseline, and ILI recovery time defined as having 'returned to usual daily activity' with residual symptoms minimally interfering., Results: At baseline, 20% (55/277) had CRP concentrations ≥30mg/L (range 0-210). CRP concentration ≥30 mg/L was not associated with recovery time (adjusted hazards ratio (HR) 0.80: 95% CI 0.50-1.3; p  = 0.33). Interaction analysis of CRP concentration ≥30 mg/L and oseltamivir treatment did not identify which patients benefit more from oseltamivir treatment (adjusted HR 0.69: 95% CI 0.37-1.3; p  = 0.23)., Conclusion: There was no association between CRP concentration of ≥30 mg/L and recovery time from ILI. Furthermore, CRP could not predict which ILI patients benefit more from oseltamivir treatment. Hence, we do not recommend CRP testing for predicting ILI recovery time or identifying patients who will receive particular benefit from oseltamivir treatment.Key PointsPredicting disease course of influenza-like illness (ILI), and identifying which patients benefit from oseltamivir treatment is a challenge for physicians.• There was no association between CRP concentration at baseline and recovery time in patients consulting with ILI in primary care.• There was no association between CRP concentration at baseline and benefit from oseltamivir treatment.• We, therefore, do not recommend CRP testing for predicting recovery time or in decision-making concerning oseltamivir prescribing in ILI patients.

Background and Objective: Influenza-like illness (ILI) leads to a substantial disease burden every winter in Europe; however, oseltamivir is not frequently prescribed to ILI patients in the primary-care setting. An open-label, multi-country, multi-season, randomised controlled trial investigated the effectiveness of oseltamivir for treating ILI in 15 European countries. We aimed to evaluate whether patients presenting with ILI in primary care and being managed with the addition of oseltamivir to usual care had lower average direct and indirect costs compared to patients with usual care alone., Methods: Resource use data were extracted from participants' daily diaries. Itemised country-specific unit costs were collected through official tariffs, pharmacies or literature. Costs were converted to 2018 values. The null hypothesis was tested based on one-sided credible intervals (CrIs) obtained by bootstrapping. Base-case analysis estimated direct cost and productivity losses using itemised costed resource use and the human capital approach. Scenario analyses with self-reported spending rather than itemised costing were also performed., Results: Patients receiving oseltamivir (N = 1306) reported fewer healthcare visits, medication uses, hospital attendances and paid-work hours lost than the other patients (N = 1298). Excluding the oseltamivir cost, the average direct costs were lower in patients treated with oseltamivir from all perspectives, but these differences were not statistically significant (perspective of patient: €17 [0-95% Crl: 16-19] vs. €24 [5-100% Crl: 18-29]; healthcare provider: €37 [28-67] vs. €44 [25-55]; healthcare payers: €54 [45-85] vs. €68 [45-81]; and society: €423 [399-478] vs. €451 [390-478]). Scenario and age-group analyses confirmed these findings, but with some between-country differences., Conclusion: The average direct and indirect costs were consistently lower in patients treated with oseltamivir than in patients without from four perspectives (excluding the oseltamivir cost). However, these differences were not statistically significant., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Patients infected with the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) are being treated empirically with oseltamivir, but there is little evidence from randomised controlled trials to support the treatment of coronavirus infections with oseltamivir., Aim: To determine whether adding oseltamivir to usual care reduces time to recovery in symptomatic patients who have tested positive for coronavirus (not including SARS-CoV-2)., Design and Setting: Exploratory analysis of data from an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial during three influenza seasons, from 2016 to 2018, in primary care research networks, in 15 European countries., Method: Patients aged ≥1 year presenting to primary care with influenza-like illness (ILI), and who tested positive for coronavirus (not including SARS-CoV-2), were randomised to usual care or usual care plus oseltamivir. The primary outcome was time to recovery defined as a return to usual activities, with minor or absent fever, headache, and muscle ache., Results: Coronaviruses (CoV-229E, CoV-OC43, CoV-KU1 and CoV-NL63) were identified in 308 (9%) out of 3266 randomised participants in the trial; 153 of these were allocated to usual care and 155 to usual care plus oseltamivir; the primary outcome was ascertained in 136 and 147 participants, respectively. The median time to recovery was shorter in patients randomised to oseltamivir: 4 days (interquartile range [IQR] 3-6) versus 5 days (IQR 3-8; hazard ratio 1.31; 95% confidence interval = 1.03 to 1.66; P = 0.026)., Conclusion: Primary care patients with ILI testing positive for coronavirus (not including SARS-CoV-2) recovered sooner when oseltamivir was added to usual care compared with usual care alone. This may be of relevance to the primary care management of COVID-19., (©The Authors.)

Background: Antivirals are infrequently prescribed in European primary care for influenza-like illness, mostly because of perceived ineffectiveness in real world primary care and because individuals who will especially benefit have not been identified in independent trials. We aimed to determine whether adding antiviral treatment to usual primary care for patients with influenza-like illness reduces time to recovery overall and in key subgroups., Methods: We did an open-label, pragmatic, adaptive, randomised controlled trial of adding oseltamivir to usual care in patients aged 1 year and older presenting with influenza-like illness in primary care. The primary endpoint was time to recovery, defined as return to usual activities, with fever, headache, and muscle ache minor or absent. The trial was designed and powered to assess oseltamivir benefit overall and in 36 prespecified subgroups defined by age, comorbidity, previous symptom duration, and symptom severity, using a Bayesian piece-wise exponential primary analysis model. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN 27908921., Findings: Between Jan 15, 2016, and April 12, 2018, we recruited 3266 participants in 15 European countries during three seasonal influenza seasons, allocated 1629 to usual care plus oseltamivir and 1637 to usual care, and ascertained the primary outcome in 1533 (94%) and 1526 (93%). 1590 (52%) of 3059 participants had PCR-confirmed influenza infection. Time to recovery was shorter in participants randomly assigned to oseltamivir (hazard ratio 1·29, 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCrI] 1·20-1·39) overall and in 30 of the 36 prespecified subgroups, with estimated hazard ratios ranging from 1·13 to 1·72. The estimated absolute mean benefit from oseltamivir was 1·02 days (95% [BCrI] 0·74-1·31) overall, and in the prespecified subgroups, ranged from 0·70 (95% BCrI 0·30-1·20) in patients younger than 12 years, with less severe symptoms, no comorbidities, and shorter previous illness duration to 3·20 (95% BCrI 1·00-5·50) in patients aged 65 years or older who had more severe illness, comorbidities, and longer previous illness duration. Regarding harms, an increased burden of vomiting or nausea was observed in the oseltamivir group., Interpretation: Primary care patients with influenza-like illness treated with oseltamivir recovered one day sooner on average than those managed by usual care alone. Older, sicker patients with comorbidities and longer previous symptom duration recovered 2-3 days sooner., Funding: European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Effective management of seasonal and pandemic influenza is a high priority internationally. Guidelines in many countries recommend antiviral treatment for older people and individuals with comorbidity at increased risk of complications. However, antivirals are not often prescribed in primary care in Europe, partly because its clinical and cost effectiveness has been insufficiently demonstrated by non-industry funded and pragmatic studies., Methods and Analysis: Antivirals for influenza-Like Illness? An rCt of Clinical and Cost effectiveness in primary CarE is a European multinational, multicentre, open-labelled, non-industry funded, pragmatic, adaptive-platform, randomised controlled trial. Initial trial arms will be best usual primary care and best usual primary care plus treatment with oseltamivir for 5 days. We aim to recruit at least 2500 participants ≥1 year presenting with influenza-like illness (ILI), with symptom duration ≤72 hours in primary care over three consecutive periods of confirmed high influenza incidence. Participant outcomes will be followed up to 28 days by diary and telephone. The primary objective is to determine whether adding antiviral treatment to best usual primary care is effective in reducing time to return to usual daily activity with fever, headache and muscle ache reduced to minor severity or less. Secondary objectives include estimating cost-effectiveness, benefits in subgroups according to age (<12, 12-64 and >64 years), severity of symptoms at presentation (low, medium and high), comorbidity (yes/no), duration of symptoms (≤48 hours/>48-72 hours), complications (hospital admission and pneumonia), use of additional prescribed medication including antibiotics, use of over-the-counter medicines and self-management of ILI symptoms., Ethics and Dissemination: Research ethics committee (REC) approval was granted by the NRES Committee South Central (Oxford B) and Clinical Trial Authority (CTA) approval by The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. All participating countries gained national REC and CTA approval as required. Dissemination of results will be through peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference presentations., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN27908921; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Oseltamivir is usually not often prescribed (or reimbursed) for non-high-risk patients consulting for influenza-like-illness (ILI) in primary care in Europe. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding oseltamivir to usual primary care in adults/adolescents (13 years +) and children with ILI during seasonal influenza epidemics, using data collected in an open-label, multi-season, randomised controlled trial of oseltamivir in 15 European countries. Methods: Direct and indirect cost estimates were based on patient reported resource use and official country-specific unit costs. Health-Related Quality of Life was assessed by EQ-5D questionnaires. Costs and quality adjusted life-years (QALY) were bootstrapped (N = 10,000) to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), from both the healthcare payers' and the societal perspectives, with uncertainty expressed through probabilistic sensitivity analysis and expected value for perfect information (EVPI) analysis. Additionally, scenario (self-reported spending), comorbidities subgroup and country-specific analyses were performed. Results: The healthcare payers' expected ICERs of oseltamivir were €22,459 per QALY gained in adults/adolescents and €13,001 in children. From the societal perspective, oseltamivir was cost-saving in adults/adolescents, but the ICER is €8,344 in children. Large uncertainties were observed in subgroups with comorbidities, especially for children. The expected ICERs and extent of decision uncertainty varied between countries (EVPI ranged €1–€35 per patient). Conclusion: Adding oseltamivir to primary usual care in Europe is likely to be cost-effective for treating adults/adolescents and children with ILI from the healthcare payers' perspective (if willingness-to-pay per QALY gained > €22,459) and cost-saving in adults/adolescents from a societal perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is little evidence about the relationship between aetiology, illness severity, and clinical course of respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in primary care. Understanding these associations would aid in the development of effective management strategies for these infections.Aim: To investigate whether clinical presentation and illness course differ between RTIs where a viral pathogen was detected and those where a potential bacterial pathogen was found.Design and Setting: Post hoc analysis of data from a pragmatic randomised trial on the effects of oseltamivir in patients with flu-like illness in primary care (n = 3266) in 15 European countries.Method: Patient characteristics and their signs and symptoms of disease were registered at baseline. Nasopharyngeal (adults) or nasal and pharyngeal (children) swabs were taken for polymerase chain reaction analysis. Patients were followed up until 28 days after inclusion. Regression models and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to analyse the relationship between aetiology, clinical presentation at baseline, and course of disease including complications.Results: Except for a less prominent congested nose (odds ratio [OR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.35 to 0.86) and acute cough (OR 0.42, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.65) in patients with flu-like illness in whom a possible bacterial pathogen was isolated, there were no clear clinical differences in presentations between those with a possible bacterial aetiology compared with those with a viral aetiology. Also, course of disease and complications were not related to aetiology.Conclusion: Given current available microbiological tests and antimicrobial treatments, and outside pandemics such as COVID-19, microbiological testing in primary care patients with flu-like illness seems to have limited value. A wait-and-see policy in most of these patients with flu-like illness seems the best option. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: Influenza-like illness (ILI) leads to a substantial disease burden every winter in Europe; however, oseltamivir is not frequently prescribed to ILI patients in the primary-care setting. An open-label, multi-country, multi-season, randomised controlled trial investigated the effectiveness of oseltamivir for treating ILI in 15 European countries. We aimed to evaluate whether patients presenting with ILI in primary care and being managed with the addition of oseltamivir to usual care had lower average direct and indirect costs compared to patients with usual care alone. Methods: Resource use data were extracted from participants' daily diaries. Itemised country-specific unit costs were collected through official tariffs, pharmacies or literature. Costs were converted to 2018 values. The null hypothesis was tested based on one-sided credible intervals (CrIs) obtained by bootstrapping. Base-case analysis estimated direct cost and productivity losses using itemised costed resource use and the human capital approach. Scenario analyses with self-reported spending rather than itemised costing were also performed. Results: Patients receiving oseltamivir (N = 1306) reported fewer healthcare visits, medication uses, hospital attendances and paid-work hours lost than the other patients (N = 1298). Excluding the oseltamivir cost, the average direct costs were lower in patients treated with oseltamivir from all perspectives, but these differences were not statistically significant (perspective of patient: €17 [0–95% Crl: 16–19] vs. €24 [5–100% Crl: 18–29]; healthcare provider: €37 [28–67] vs. €44 [25–55]; healthcare payers: €54 [45–85] vs. €68 [45–81]; and society: €423 [399–478] vs. €451 [390–478]). Scenario and age-group analyses confirmed these findings, but with some between-country differences. Conclusion: The average direct and indirect costs were consistently lower in patients treated with oseltamivir than in patients without from four perspectives (excluding the oseltamivir cost). However, these differences were not statistically significant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]