Tools for Practice Outils pour la pratique


#131: Anti-virals for Flu: Looking for evidence for “Stockpile, store, expire, repeat”


CLINICAL QUESTION
QUESTION CLINIQUE
Do neuramidase inhibitors (NIs) oseltamivir (Tamiflu®) and/or zanamivir (Relenza®) improve clinical outcomes in healthy patients with influenza or influenza-like illness?


BOTTOM LINE
RÉSULTAT FINAL
Biased, poor quality, mostly unpublished evidence demonstrates that oseltamivir and zanamivir shorten the duration of influenza symptoms by ~1/2 a dayObjectively defined pneumonia or hospitalizations are not decreased.  



CFPCLearn Logo

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits

La lecture d'articles d'outils de pratique peut vous permettre de gagner des crédits MainPro+

Join Now S’inscrire maintenant

Already a CFPCLearn Member? Log in

Déjà abonné à CMFCApprendre? Ouvrir une session



EVIDENCE
DONNÉES PROBANTES
2014 systematic reviews (three publicationsof randomized, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) including >160,000 pages of previously unreleased clinical study reports.1-3 
  • Treating influenza-like illness or influenza in primarily healthy adults, oseltamivir (11 RCTs)1,2 and zanamivir (14 RCTs):1,3 
    • Time to symptom improvement 0.6-0.7 days (~10%) better.1-3 
      • Zanamivir benefit similar to “relief medications” (like acetaminophen/paracetamol).1,3 
    • Pneumonia (x-ray confirmed)No benefit.1-3  
    • Hospitalizations: No benefit1,2 or not reported.1,3 
    • Adverse events:  
      • Oseltamivir:1,2  
        • Number Need to Harm: Nausea=28vomiting=22.  
      • Post-marketing surveillance reports (frequency unknown)  
        • ZanamivirBronchospasm.4 
        • OseltamivirDelirium and self-injury.5  
2015 systematic review6 concluded adults receiving oseltamivir had faster symptom alleviation, fewer lower respiratory tract complications and hospitalizations. 
  • Used similar studies1,2 but conclusion based on subgroup of documented influenza. 
  • Review funded by, and two authors had pre-existing industry financial affiliations, with manufacturer of oseltamivir. 
From 26 systematic reviews, authors with financial conflicts of interest were:7 
  • Five times more likely to report benefits of NI use. 
    • This includes a systematic review of cohort studies from the 2009-10 pandemic suggesting that NIs decrease mortality in hospitalized patients.8 
  • Less likely to report on publication bias and quality of included studies. 
Other concerns (beyond publication bias):1 Not publishing protocols; inconsistent outcome definition; using “placebos” with potential adverse effects; incomplete reporting (example missing symptom cards).  Context:   
  • Since 1999, oseltamivir sales are >$18 billion, half from governments and companstockpiling. Most have never been used.9 
  • NIs: Not recommended if symptoms >48 hours.4,5  
    • Zanamivir: Contraindicated: Asthma or COPD.4 
    • Oseltamivir: Limited evidence: underlying cardiac or respiratory disease.5 
  • Limited data suggests NIs likely safe in pregnancy10 although makers of: 
    • Zanamivir dont recommend in pregnancy.4  
    • Oseltamivir conclude insufficient data; only use when potential benefit justifies potential risk to fetus.5 


Latest Tools for Practice
Derniers outils pour la pratique

#367 Oral Calcitonin Gene-related Peptide Antagonists: A painfully long name for the acute treatment of migraines

What are the risks and benefits of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of episodic migraines?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#366 Looking for Closure: Managing simple excisions or wounds efficiently

What are some options for efficiency in wound closure?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#365 Shrooms for Glooms: Evidence for psilocybin for depression

What are the benefits and harms of psilocybin for treatment-resistant/recurrent depression?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

This content is certified for MainPro+ Credits, log in to access

Ce contenu est certifié pour les crédits MainPro+, Ouvrir une session


Author(s)
Auteur(s)
  • Christina Korownyk MD CCFP
  • Michael Kolber BSc MD CCFP MSc

1. Jefferson T, Jones MA, Doshi P, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Apr 10; 4:CD008965.

2. Jefferson T, Jones MA, Doshi P, et al. BMJ. 2014; 348:g2545.

3. Heneghan CJ, Onakpoya I, Thompson M, et al. BMJ. 2014; 348:g2547.

4. Relenza® (product monograph on the internet). Mississauga, ON: GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2012. Available from: http://www.gsk.ca/english/docs-pdf/product-monographs/Relenza.pdf Accessed December 17, 2014.

5. Tamiflu® (product monograph on the internet). Mississauga, ON: Hoffmann-La Roche Limited, 2014. Available from: http://www.rochecanada.com/fmfiles/re7234008/Research/ClinicalTrialsForms/Products/ConsumerInformation/MonographsandPublicAdvisories/Tamiflu/Tamiflu_PM_E.pdf Accessed December 17, 2014.

6. Dobson J, Whitley RJ, Pocock S, Monto AS. Lancet 2015 (published online January 30, 2015). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(14)62449-1.

7. Dunn AG, Arachi D, Hudgins J, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2014; 161:513-8.

8. Muthuri SG, Venkatesan S, Myles PR, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2014 May; 2(5):395-404.

9. Jack A. BMJ. 2014; 348:g2524.

10. Dunstan HJ, Mill AC, Stephens S, et al. BJOG. 2014; 121:901-6.

Authors do not have any conflicts to disclose.