Evaluation of influenza antiviral prophylaxis for long-term care residents: a systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 7.3 1区 医学 Q1 IMMUNOLOGY Clinical Infectious Diseases Pub Date : 2025-03-08 DOI:10.1093/cid/ciaf101
Ryan Hanula, Jessica Glugosh, Elise Van Leer, Émilie Bortolussi-Courval, Connor Prosty
{"title":"Evaluation of influenza antiviral prophylaxis for long-term care residents: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Ryan Hanula, Jessica Glugosh, Elise Van Leer, Émilie Bortolussi-Courval, Connor Prosty","doi":"10.1093/cid/ciaf101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Influenza is a pervasive respiratory infection which 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 August 16, 2023. For inclusion, observational studies or randomized controlled trials (RCTs) had to report influenza-like illness (ILI) or infection rates amongst adult long-term care populations receiving prophylaxis. Outcome values were meta-analyzed as intervention-specific pooled proportions (PPs) and risk ratios (RRs) 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%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 RR being below 1 (0.51-0.75) due to expansive 95%CIs. Conclusions Oseltamivir or zanamivir could provide some benefit but low statistical power behind most estimates precluded definitive conclusions. Therefore, additional studies (RCTs) are needed to expand the evidence base and validate whether prophylaxis is beneficial in this setting.","PeriodicalId":10463,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Infectious Diseases","volume":"53 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaf101","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Influenza is a pervasive respiratory infection which 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 August 16, 2023. For inclusion, observational studies or randomized controlled trials (RCTs) had to report influenza-like illness (ILI) or infection rates amongst adult long-term care populations receiving prophylaxis. Outcome values were meta-analyzed as intervention-specific pooled proportions (PPs) and risk ratios (RRs) 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%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 RR being below 1 (0.51-0.75) due to expansive 95%CIs. Conclusions Oseltamivir or zanamivir could provide some benefit but low statistical power behind most estimates precluded definitive conclusions. Therefore, additional studies (RCTs) are needed to expand the evidence base and validate whether prophylaxis is beneficial in this setting.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估长期护理居民的流感抗病毒预防措施:系统回顾和荟萃分析
流感是一种普遍存在的呼吸道感染,对长期护理的居民造成了不成比例的负担。为了限制暴发,指南建议抗病毒预防,特别是奥司他韦或扎那米韦,尽管承认支持证据不足。因此,我们旨在回顾有关奥司他韦、扎那米韦和巴洛韦预防流感长期护理疗效的文献。方法检索Medline、Embase、PubMed等数据库,检索时间为建库至2023年8月16日。为了纳入,观察性研究或随机对照试验(rct)必须报告接受预防的成人长期护理人群中的流感样疾病(ILI)或感染率。结果值采用干预特异性合并比例(PPs)和风险比(rr)进行meta分析。偏倚风险通过Cochrane风险偏倚工具2.0和Joanna Briggs Institute检查表进行评估。结果共纳入14项研究,涉及12672名居民。给予奥司他韦或扎那米韦的个体经历了最少的症状,测试证实的感染(奥司他韦PP: 0.7%, 95%CI: 0.1-4.7%,扎那米韦PP: 3.0%, 95%CI: 0.9-9.4%)和ILIs(奥司他韦PP: 2.8%, 95%CI: 1.8-4.3%,扎那米韦PP: 3.4%, 95%CI: 1.3-7.2%)。然而,与大多数其他干预措施相比,未发现显著的统计学差异(ILI PP范围:4.5-6.4%,感染PP范围:4.6-7.9%)。同样,在直接比较抗病毒药物和安慰剂的研究中,由于95% ci的扩大,尽管每个RR都低于1(0.51-0.75),但没有相关的益处。结论奥司他韦或扎那米韦可以提供一些益处,但大多数估计的统计能力较低,因此无法得出明确的结论。因此,需要进一步的研究(rct)来扩大证据基础,并验证在这种情况下预防是否有益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Clinical Infectious Diseases 医学-传染病学
CiteScore
25.00
自引率
2.50%
发文量
900
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Infectious Diseases (CID) is dedicated to publishing original research, reviews, guidelines, and perspectives with the potential to reshape clinical practice, providing clinicians with valuable insights for patient care. CID comprehensively addresses the clinical presentation, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of a wide spectrum of infectious diseases. The journal places a high priority on the assessment of current and innovative treatments, microbiology, immunology, and policies, ensuring relevance to patient care in its commitment to advancing the field of infectious diseases.
期刊最新文献
When Switching Antiretroviral Therapy Is Not Enough. A 48-week, Randomized Controlled Trial of Doravirine for Individuals with HIV and Obesity on Integrase Inhibitors and Tenofovir Alafenamide: The Do IT Study (ACTG A5391). Limited durability of improvements in infection prevention and control practices following reactive interventions leaves healthcare facilities vulnerable to Ebola virus transmission. Comparison of ceftolozane-tazobactam and ceftazidime-avibactam in the treatment of MDR/DTR Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Effectiveness of Updated 2023-2024 (Monovalent XBB.1.5) COVID-19 Vaccination Against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron XBB and BA.2.86/JN.1 Lineage Hospitalization and a Comparison of Clinical Severity-IVY Network, 26 Hospitals, 18 October 2023-9 March 2024.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1