MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W40539051

Zanamivir (Glaxo Wellcome).

2000· article· en· W40539051 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Oxford

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZanamivirAdvisory committeeMedicineBristol-MyersNeuraminidase inhibitorCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Political sciencePublic administrationInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Zanamivir, a neuraminidase inhibitor under license from Biota, has been developed and launched by Glaxo Wellcome for the treatment of influenza virus infection [277127]. While registered as drugs, neuraminidase inhibitors are technically vaccines as they are believed to work by provoking an immune response, thus preventing the spread of infection from one cell to another within the respiratory tract [314356]. It is administered, using an inhaler, directly to where the virus replicates, minimizing the potential for side effects. Zanamivir has been launched, under the name Relenza, for the treatment of influenza in Australia [325148], New Zealand [335591] and the UK [341871]. It is registered in Mexico and Armenia [346474], and approved in Japan [351580]. In October 1999, it was launched in the US [352392] and Glaxo confirmed in January 2000, that zanamivir has been launched all over Europe, with the exception of Greece and Spain, where launch is imminent [352513]. In October 1999, the British Pharma Group (BPG) wrote to the UK Prime Minister to seek a discussion on the implications for the British-based pharmaceutical industry of the recommendation from NICE's Raised Appraisal Committee that Relenza should be banned from the NHS [342597]. An FDA submission was made in October 1998 [302732,304779]; the FDA advisory committee met on February 24 1999 to discuss the application [313583]. The Antivirals Drugs Advisory Committee voted against recommending zanamivir for FDA approval [316196]. Members suggested that additional studies using a different endpoint or targeting specific high-risk populations would be more likely to garner support [317454]. Following a discussion with Glaxo Wellcome in April 1999, the FDA indicated that it would continue to review the NDA for zanamivir [320565]. In July 1999, the company received final FDA approval for the drug for the treatment of both influenza A and B [334127], and aimed to initiate a phase IV trial program for the detection of consumer problems with the product, following launch of the product in time for the 1999-2000 flu season [352392,335048]. In September 1998, Glaxo applied to the Canadian Health Protection Branch (HPB) for approval to market zanamivir for the treatment and prevention of influenza. A separate application for Fast Track approval was also made with the HPB [299375,299472]. In November 1999, zanamivir received approval in Canada [346474]. Glaxo expects to make MAA and NDA filings for the use of zanamivir as a prophylactic in 1999 [333494]. In July 1998, Merrill Lynch predicted that as zanamivir offered only modest benefits gained from a narrow treatment window, potential would be limited and forecast annual sales of US dollar 30 million [302048]. In January 1999, Paribas predicted sales of pounds 75 million in 1999, rising to pounds 280 million in 2003 [317650]. In April 1999, ABN Amro predicted sales of pounds 23 million in 1999, rising to pounds 326 million in 2003 [328676]. In August 1999, Lehman Brothers estimated that sales of zanamivir will reach US dollar 400 million by 2003, and that it is an obvious candidate for an OTC switch, although this is not likely until 5 years after launch [336356].

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1190.056

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicInfluenza Virus Research Studies→French-language works237,207→