RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Oseltamivir is usually not often prescribed (or reimbursed) for non-high-risk patients consulting for influenza-like-illness (ILI) in primary care in Europe. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding oseltamivir to usual primary care in adults/adolescents (13 years +) and children with ILI during seasonal influenza epidemics, using data collected in an open-label, multi-season, randomised controlled trial of oseltamivir in 15 European countries. METHODS: Direct and indirect cost estimates were based on patient reported resource use and official country-specific unit costs. Health-Related Quality of Life was assessed by EQ-5D questionnaires. Costs and quality adjusted life-years (QALY) were bootstrapped (N = 10,000) to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), from both the healthcare payers' and the societal perspectives, with uncertainty expressed through probabilistic sensitivity analysis and expected value for perfect information (EVPI) analysis. Additionally, scenario (self-reported spending), comorbidities subgroup and country-specific analyses were performed. RESULTS: The healthcare payers' expected ICERs of oseltamivir were 22,459 per QALY gained in adults/adolescents and 13,001 in children. From the societal perspective, oseltamivir was cost-saving in adults/adolescents, but the ICER is 8,344 in children. Large uncertainties were observed in subgroups with comorbidities, especially for children. The expected ICERs and extent of decision uncertainty varied between countries (EVPI ranged 1-35 per patient). CONCLUSION: Adding oseltamivir to primary usual care in Europe is likely to be cost-effective for treating adults/adolescents and children with ILI from the healthcare payers' perspective (if willingness-to-pay per QALY gained > 22,459) and cost-saving in adults/adolescents from a societal perspective.
Asunto(s)
Gripe Humana , Virosis , Adolescente , Adulto , Niño , Humanos , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Oseltamivir/uso terapéutico , Gripe Humana/tratamiento farmacológico , Calidad de Vida , Europa (Continente) , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Atención Primaria de SaludRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Clinical findings do not accurately predict laboratory diagnosis of influenza. Early identification of influenza is considered useful for proper management decisions in primary care. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the diagnostic value of the presence and the severity of symptoms for the diagnosis of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection among adults presenting with influenza-like illness (ILI) in primary care. METHODS: Secondary analysis of patients with ILI who participated in a clinical trial from 2015 to 2018 in 15 European countries. Patients rated signs and symptoms as absent, minor, moderate, or major problem. A nasopharyngeal swab was taken for microbiological identification of influenza and other microorganisms. Models were generated considering (i) the presence of individual symptoms and (ii) the severity rating of symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 2,639 patients aged 18 or older were included in the analysis. The mean age was 41.8 ± 14.7 years, and 1,099 were men (42.1%). Influenza was microbiologically confirmed in 1,337 patients (51.1%). The area under the curve (AUC) of the model for the presence of any of seven symptoms for detecting influenza was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-0.68), whereas the AUC of the symptom severity model, which included eight variables-cough, fever, muscle aches, sweating and/or chills, moderate to severe overall disease, age, abdominal pain, and sore throat-was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.69-0.72). CONCLUSION: Clinical prediction of microbiologically confirmed influenza in adults with ILI is slightly more accurate when based on patient reported symptom severity than when based on the presence or absence of symptoms.
Influenza is usually diagnosed clinically. However, the accuracy of a diagnosis of influenza based on clinical features is limited because symptoms overlap considerably with those caused by other microorganisms. This study examined whether identification of the severity rather than the presence of key signs and symptoms could aid in the diagnosis of influenza, thereby helping clinicians to determine when antiviral agent use is appropriate. The authors used the database of a previous randomized clinical trial on the effectiveness of an antiviral carried out in primary care centers in 15 countries in Europe during three epidemic periods from 2015/2016 to 2017/2018. Participants with influenza symptoms were included and they were asked about the presence and severity of different symptoms during the baseline visit with their doctors and a nasopharyngeal swab was taken for microbiological analysis. Overall, only 51% of the patients aged 18 or older had a confirmed influenza infection. Clinical findings are not particularly useful for confirming or excluding the diagnosis of influenza. However, the results of our study recommend considering how intense the different symptoms are, since key symptoms rated as moderate or severe are slightly better for predicting flu rather than the presence or absence of these symptoms.
Asunto(s)
Gripe Humana , Adulto , Técnicas de Laboratorio Clínico , Tos , Femenino , Fiebre , Humanos , Gripe Humana/diagnóstico , Gripe Humana/epidemiología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Atención Primaria de SaludRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Influenza-like illness (ILI) leads to a substantial disease burden every winter in Europe; however, oseltamivir is not frequently prescribed to ILI patients in the primary-care setting. An open-label, multi-country, multi-season, randomised controlled trial investigated the effectiveness of oseltamivir for treating ILI in 15 European countries. We aimed to evaluate whether patients presenting with ILI in primary care and being managed with the addition of oseltamivir to usual care had lower average direct and indirect costs compared to patients with usual care alone. METHODS: Resource use data were extracted from participants' daily diaries. Itemised country-specific unit costs were collected through official tariffs, pharmacies or literature. Costs were converted to 2018 values. The null hypothesis was tested based on one-sided credible intervals (CrIs) obtained by bootstrapping. Base-case analysis estimated direct cost and productivity losses using itemised costed resource use and the human capital approach. Scenario analyses with self-reported spending rather than itemised costing were also performed. RESULTS: Patients receiving oseltamivir (N = 1306) reported fewer healthcare visits, medication uses, hospital attendances and paid-work hours lost than the other patients (N = 1298). Excluding the oseltamivir cost, the average direct costs were lower in patients treated with oseltamivir from all perspectives, but these differences were not statistically significant (perspective of patient: 17 [0-95% Crl: 16-19] vs. 24 [5-100% Crl: 18-29]; healthcare provider: 37 [28-67] vs. 44 [25-55]; healthcare payers: 54 [45-85] vs. 68 [45-81]; and society: 423 [399-478] vs. 451 [390-478]). Scenario and age-group analyses confirmed these findings, but with some between-country differences. CONCLUSION: The average direct and indirect costs were consistently lower in patients treated with oseltamivir than in patients without from four perspectives (excluding the oseltamivir cost). However, these differences were not statistically significant.
Asunto(s)
Gripe Humana , Oseltamivir , Antivirales/uso terapéutico , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Gripe Humana/tratamiento farmacológico , Gripe Humana/epidemiología , Oseltamivir/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Antivirals are infrequently prescribed in European primary care for influenza-like illness, mostly because of perceived ineffectiveness in real world primary care and because individuals who will especially benefit have not been identified in independent trials. We aimed to determine whether adding antiviral treatment to usual primary care for patients with influenza-like illness reduces time to recovery overall and in key subgroups. METHODS: We did an open-label, pragmatic, adaptive, randomised controlled trial of adding oseltamivir to usual care in patients aged 1 year and older presenting with influenza-like illness in primary care. The primary endpoint was time to recovery, defined as return to usual activities, with fever, headache, and muscle ache minor or absent. The trial was designed and powered to assess oseltamivir benefit overall and in 36 prespecified subgroups defined by age, comorbidity, previous symptom duration, and symptom severity, using a Bayesian piece-wise exponential primary analysis model. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN 27908921. FINDINGS: Between Jan 15, 2016, and April 12, 2018, we recruited 3266 participants in 15 European countries during three seasonal influenza seasons, allocated 1629 to usual care plus oseltamivir and 1637 to usual care, and ascertained the primary outcome in 1533 (94%) and 1526 (93%). 1590 (52%) of 3059 participants had PCR-confirmed influenza infection. Time to recovery was shorter in participants randomly assigned to oseltamivir (hazard ratio 1·29, 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCrI] 1·20-1·39) overall and in 30 of the 36 prespecified subgroups, with estimated hazard ratios ranging from 1·13 to 1·72. The estimated absolute mean benefit from oseltamivir was 1·02 days (95% [BCrI] 0·74-1·31) overall, and in the prespecified subgroups, ranged from 0·70 (95% BCrI 0·30-1·20) in patients younger than 12 years, with less severe symptoms, no comorbidities, and shorter previous illness duration to 3·20 (95% BCrI 1·00-5·50) in patients aged 65 years or older who had more severe illness, comorbidities, and longer previous illness duration. Regarding harms, an increased burden of vomiting or nausea was observed in the oseltamivir group. INTERPRETATION: Primary care patients with influenza-like illness treated with oseltamivir recovered one day sooner on average than those managed by usual care alone. Older, sicker patients with comorbidities and longer previous symptom duration recovered 2-3 days sooner. FUNDING: European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme.
Asunto(s)
Antivirales/administración & dosificación , Gripe Humana/terapia , Oseltamivir/administración & dosificación , Atención Primaria de Salud/métodos , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Antivirales/uso terapéutico , Niño , Preescolar , Terapia Combinada , Europa (Continente) , Femenino , Humanos , Lactante , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Oseltamivir/uso terapéutico , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Effective management of seasonal and pandemic influenza is a high priority internationally. Guidelines in many countries recommend antiviral treatment for older people and individuals with comorbidity at increased risk of complications. However, antivirals are not often prescribed in primary care in Europe, partly because its clinical and cost effectiveness has been insufficiently demonstrated by non-industry funded and pragmatic studies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Antivirals for influenza-Like Illness? An rCt of Clinical and Cost effectiveness in primary CarE is a European multinational, multicentre, open-labelled, non-industry funded, pragmatic, adaptive-platform, randomised controlled trial. Initial trial arms will be best usual primary care and best usual primary care plus treatment with oseltamivir for 5 days. We aim to recruit at least 2500 participants ≥1 year presenting with influenza-like illness (ILI), with symptom duration ≤72 hours in primary care over three consecutive periods of confirmed high influenza incidence. Participant outcomes will be followed up to 28 days by diary and telephone. The primary objective is to determine whether adding antiviral treatment to best usual primary care is effective in reducing time to return to usual daily activity with fever, headache and muscle ache reduced to minor severity or less. Secondary objectives include estimating cost-effectiveness, benefits in subgroups according to age (<12, 12-64 and >64 years), severity of symptoms at presentation (low, medium and high), comorbidity (yes/no), duration of symptoms (≤48 hours/>48-72 hours), complications (hospital admission and pneumonia), use of additional prescribed medication including antibiotics, use of over-the-counter medicines and self-management of ILI symptoms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics committee (REC) approval was granted by the NRES Committee South Central (Oxford B) and Clinical Trial Authority (CTA) approval by The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. All participating countries gained national REC and CTA approval as required. Dissemination of results will be through peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN27908921; Pre-results.
Asunto(s)
Antivirales/uso terapéutico , Gripe Humana/tratamiento farmacológico , Oseltamivir/uso terapéutico , Ensayos Clínicos Pragmáticos como Asunto , Actividades Cotidianas , Antivirales/economía , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Femenino , Fiebre/virología , Cefalea/virología , Hospitalización , Humanos , Gripe Humana/complicaciones , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Masculino , Estudios Multicéntricos como Asunto , Mialgia/virología , Medicamentos sin Prescripción/uso terapéutico , Oseltamivir/economía , Neumonía/virología , Medicamentos bajo Prescripción/uso terapéutico , Autocuidado , Evaluación de Síntomas , Factores de TiempoRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: General practitioners (GPs) write about 80% of all antibiotic prescriptions, the greatest number of them for patients with respiratory tract infections. However, there is a lack of research targeting the influence of external factors on antibiotic prescribing by physicians. This study aimed to explore experiences of GPs in Lithuania and the Russian Federation with regard to antibiotic prescription for upper respiratory tract infections. By such means it might be possible to reveal external enabling factors that influence antibiotic prescribing in these countries. METHOD: Five focus groups were performed with 22 GPs from Lithuania and 29 GPs from the Kaliningrad Region of the Russian Federation; then, thematic analysis of data was performed. RESULTS: Six thematic categories were identified that are related to external forces enabling antibiotic prescription: the necessity for political leadership to encourage clinically grounded antibiotic use; over-the-counter sale of antibiotics; designation of antibiotics as reimbursable medications; supervision by external oversight institutions; lack of guidelines for the treatment of upper respiratory tract infections; and pharmaceutical company activities. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive efforts to reduce the burden of non-clinically grounded antibiotic prescription should go beyond addressing factors at the physician-patient level and take into account important factors in the enabling environment as well.