MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408249726 · doi:10.1093/cid/ciaf101

Evaluation of Influenza Antiviral Prophylaxis for Long-term Care Residents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4408249726 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan Hanula, Jessica Glugosh, Elise Van Leer, Émilie Bortolussi‐Courval, Connor Prosty

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcMaster UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZanamivirMedicineOseltamivirRelative riskRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisPost-exposure prophylaxisNeuraminidase inhibitorInternal medicinePlaceboNumber needed to treatIntensive care medicineConfidence intervalImmunologyAlternative medicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DiseasePathologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Influenza is a pervasive respiratory infection that disproportionately burdens long-term care residents. To limit outbreaks, guidelines recommend antiviral prophylaxis, particularly oseltamivir or zanamivir, despite acknowledging the inadequate supporting evidence. Therefore, we aimed to review the literature on the efficacy of oseltamivir, zanamivir, and baloxavir prophylaxis for influenza in long-term care. METHODS: Medline, Embase, PubMed, and several other databases were searched from inception to 16 August 2023. For inclusion, observational studies or randomized controlled trials had to report influenza-like illness (ILI) or infection rates among adult long-term care populations receiving prophylaxis. Outcome values were meta-analyzed as intervention-specific pooled proportions (PPs) and risk ratios when applicable. Risk of bias was assessed via the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0 and Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. RESULTS: In total, 14 studies were included, comprising 12 672 residents. Individuals given oseltamivir or zanamivir experienced the fewest symptomatic, test-confirmed infections (oseltamivir PP: 0.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.1-4.7; zanamivir PP: 3.0%; 95% CI: 0.9-9.4) and ILIs (oseltamivir PP: 2.8%; 95% CI: 1.8-4.3; zanamivir PP: 3.4%; 95% CI: 1.3-7.2). However, no significant statistical differences were detected versus most other interventions (ILI PP range: 4.5%-6.4%, infection PP range: 4.6%-7.9%). Similarly, in studies directly comparing either antiviral to placebo, there were no associated benefits despite every risk ratio being below 1 (0.51-0.75) because of expansive 95% CIs. CONCLUSIONS: Oseltamivir or zanamivir could provide some benefit but low statistical power behind most estimates precluded definitive conclusions. Therefore, additional studies (randomized controlled trials) are needed to expand the evidence base and validate whether prophylaxis is beneficial in this setting.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.043
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.360
GPT teacher head0.579
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious Diseases→Same topicInfluenza Virus Research Studies→French-language works237,207→