Safety and effectiveness of neuraminidase inhibitors for influenza treatment, prophylaxis, and outbreak control: a systematic review of systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To review evidence from systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses (SR/MAs) regarding neuraminidase inhibitor (NI) safety and effectiveness. METHODS: We conducted an SR of SR/MAs of randomized control and/or observational studies. We searched eight electronic databases for SR/MAs that examined the effectiveness or safety of NIs administered for influenza (i.e. influenza-like illness or lab-confirmed) treatment or prophylaxis. RESULTS: We identified 27 (0.7%) eligible SR/MAs of 3723 articles reviewed. NI (n = 2) or oseltamivir (n = 1) versus no treatment were consistently associated with a decrease in mortality odds among the hospitalized, general population (OR range 0.2 - 0.8). Oseltamivir versus no treatment was associated with a decrease in hospitalization and pneumonia risk/odds in 2/4 SR/MAs. Oseltamivir (n = 4) and zanamivir (n = 3) were consistently associated with a 0.5 - 1 day decrease in symptom duration. Oseltamivir (n = 4) or zanamivir (n = 4) versus no prophylaxis were consistently associated with a decrease in the odds/risk of symptomatic secondary transmission (OR/RR range 0.1 - 0.5). Oseltamivir versus no treatment was consistently associated with a 1.5- to 2.5-fold increase in the odds/risk of nausea (n = 4) and vomiting (n = 5). CONCLUSIONS: NI treatment is likely to be effective at reducing mortality among hospitalized patients, and symptom duration by up to 1 day in the general population. Oseltamivir or zanamivir prophylaxis are likely to be effective at reducing secondary symptomatic influenza transmission. Increased nausea and vomiting are likely associated with oseltamivir use. We recommend that decisions regarding NI use are made in consideration of potential adverse events, particularly for the general population at low risk of complications. Among hospitalized patients, NI administration seems warranted to reduce mortality risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".