MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Oseltamivir Treatment vs Supportive Care for Seasonal Influenza Requiring Hospitalization

2025· article· en· W4411179039 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anthony D. Bai, Siddhartha Srivastava, Thuwiba Al Baluki, Fahad Razak, Amol A. Verma

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOseltamivirSeasonal influenzaMedicineEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Infectious disease (medical specialty)Disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Current guidelines recommend oseltamivir treatment for all patients hospitalized with influenza, but this guidance is based on suboptimal evidence. Objective: To evaluate outcomes associated with oseltamivir treatment when compared with supportive care for severe seasonal influenza requiring hospitalization. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study using target trial emulation included adult patients admitted to hospital with influenza from 30 hospitals in Ontario, Canada, from January 2015 to June 2023. Data were analyzed from November 2024 to March 2025. Exposure: Oseltamivir treatment on hospital day 0 or 1 vs supportive care without oseltamivir. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included time to being discharged alive and readmission within 30 days. Overlap weighting of propensity scores was used to balance covariates, and a competing risk model was used to compare time to being discharged alive. Results: Of 11 073 patients (mean [SD] age, 72.6 [16.8] years; 5793 female [52.3%]), there were 7632 patients (68.9%) and 3441 patients (31.1%) in the oseltamivir and supportive care groups, respectively. In hospital, 268 patients (3.5%) and 168 patients (4.9%) in the oseltamivir and supportive care groups died, respectively, with an adjusted risk difference of -1.8% (95% CI, -2.8% to -0.9%; P < .001). The oseltamivir treatment group was more likely to be discharged alive (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.25; P < .001). After discharge, 645 patients (8.5%) and 336 patients (9.8%) were readmitted in the oseltamivir and supportive care groups, respectively, with an adjusted risk difference of -1.5% (95% CI, -2.8% to -0.2%; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients hospitalized with influenza, oseltamivir treatment was associated with a lower in-hospital mortality risk, earlier discharge, and lower readmission rate, supporting evidence for the current guideline recommendation of oseltamivir treatment for severe influenza. Clinical trials are needed to definitively answer this question.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.589
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207