Safety Of Oseltamivir Research Articles

Evaluation of Oseltamivir Used to Prevent Hospitalization in Outpatients With Influenza

Despite widespread use, summary evidence from prior meta-analyses has contradictory conclusions regarding whether oseltamivir decreases the risk of hospitalization when given to outpatients. Several large investigator-initiated randomized clinical trials have not yet been meta-analyzed. To assess the efficacy and safety of oseltamivir in preventing hospitalization among influenza-infected adult and adolescent outpatients. PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Europe PubMed Central, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry were searched from inception to January 4, 2022. Included studies were randomized clinical trials comparing oseltamivir vs placebo or nonactive controls in outpatients with confirmed influenza infection. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines were followed. Two independent reviewers (R.H. and É.B.C.) extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. Each effect size was pooled using a restricted maximum likelihood random effects model. The quality of evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) framework. Hospitalization was pooled as risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) estimates with 95% CIs. Of 2352 studies identified, 15 were included. The intention-to-treat infected (ITTi) population was comprised of 6166 individuals with 54.7% prescribed oseltamivir. Across study populations, 53.9% (5610 of 10 471) were female and the mean age was 45.3 (14.5) years. Overall, oseltamivir was not associated with reduced risk of hospitalization within the ITTi population (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.29; RD, -0.17%; 95% CI, -0.23% to 0.48%). Oseltamivir was also not associated with reduced hospitalization in older populations (mean age ≥65 years: RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.21 to 4.90) or in patients considered at greater risk of hospitalization (RR, 0.65; 0.33 to 1.28). Within the safety population, oseltamivir was associated with increased nausea (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.82) and vomiting (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.28 to 2.63) but not serious adverse events (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.46 to1.08). In this systematic review and meta-analysis among influenza-infected outpatients, oseltamivir was not associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization but was associated with increased gastrointestinal adverse events. To justify continued use for this purpose, an adequately powered trial in a suitably high-risk population is justified.

The effect of oseltamivir use in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A multicenter propensity score-matched study

BackgroundOseltamivir has been used as adjunctive therapy in the management of patients with COVID-19. However, the evidence about using oseltamivir in critically ill patients with severe COVID-19 remains scarce. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oseltamivir in critically ill patients with COVID-19. MethodsThis multicenter, retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Patients were categorized into two groups based on oseltamivir use within 48 hours of ICU admission (Oseltamivir vs. Control). The primary endpoint was viral load clearance. ResultsA total of 226 patients were matched into two groups based on their propensity score. The time to COVID-19 viral load clearance was shorter in patients who received oseltamivir (11 vs. 16 days, p = 0.042; beta coefficient: −0.84, 95%CI: (−1.33, 0.34), p = 0.0009). Mechanical ventilation (MV) duration was also shorter in patients who received oseltamivir (6.5 vs. 8.5 days, p = 0.02; beta coefficient: −0.27, 95% CI: [−0.55,0.02], P = 0.06). In addition, patients who received oseltamivir had lower odds of hospital/ventilator-acquired pneumonia (OR:0.49, 95% CI:(0.283,0.861), p = 0.01). On the other hand, there were no significant differences between the groups in the 30-day and in-hospital mortality. ConclusionOseltamivir was associated with faster viral clearance and shorter MV duration without safety concerns in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of oseltamivir (Tamiflu) in the treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Efforts are ongoing by researchers globally to develop new drugs or repurpose existing ones for treating COVID-19. Thus, this led to the use of oseltamivir, an antiviral drug used for treating influenza A and B viruses, as a trial drug for COVID-19. However, available evidence from clinical studies has shown conflicting results on the effectiveness of oseltamivir in COVID-19 treatment. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the clinical safety and efficacy of oseltamivir for treating COVID-19. The study was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines, and the priori protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021270821). Five databases were searched, the identified records were screened, and followed by the extraction of relevant data. Eight observational studies from four Asian countries were included. A random-effects model was used to pool odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MD), and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the study analysis. Survival was not significantly different between all categories of oseltamivir and the comparison groups analysed. The duration of hospitalisation was significantly shorter in the oseltamivir group following sensitivity analysis (MD -5.95, 95% CI -9.91--1.99 p = 0.003, heterogeneity I2 0%, p = 0.37). The virological, laboratory and radiological response rates were all not in favour of oseltamivir. However, the electrocardiographic safety parameters were found to be better in the oseltamivir group. However, more studies are needed to establish robust evidence on the effectiveness or otherwise of oseltamivir usage for treating COVID-19.

Risks in clinical applications of oseltamivir phosphate in the real world.

A retrospective analysis was conducted on the use of oseltamivir phosphate in outpatients and inpatients in our hospital from February 2016 to February 2019. The indications, purposes, dosage, combination, and adverse reactions were analysed focussing on the rationality and safety of oseltamivir. The relationship between adverse reactions and age, allergic history, underlying diseases, and combined drug use were analysed to find the risk factors associated therewith. A total of 1795 adult patients and 3199 children were treated with oseltamivir phosphate. In the adult group 1481 patients (82.5%) and in the child group, 2602 patients (81.3%) received oseltamivir for therapeutic ourposes. The main clinical diagnoses were upper respiratory tract infection, bronchitis, and pneumonia. Only 767 cases (15.2%) were confirmed as influenza virus infection by virological examination, the rest were suspected influenza cases and clinically diagnosed influenza cases. For preventive drug use, an adult group comprising 314 cases (17.5%) and a child group with 597 cases (18.7%) were identified. The dosage and course of treatment were more standardised, but there were too many types of combined drugs, and the indications of preventive use were insufficient in some cases. A total of 106 adverse drug reactions (2.12%) was recorded, mainly affecting the digestive system and neuropsychiatric systems. The rate of adverse drug reactions was related to age and the number of drug combinations. Attention should also be paid to age, combination of drugs, and allergy history.

Efficacy and Safety of Oseltamivir in Children: Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Oseltamivir has been used to treat children with influenza for nearly 2 decades, with treatment currently approved for infants aged ≥2 weeks. However, efficacy and safety remain controversial. Newer randomized, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs), not included in previous meta-analyses, can add to the evidence base. We conducted a systematic review to identify RCTs of oseltamivir therapy in children. We obtained individual patient data and examined protocol-defined outcomes. We then conducted a 2-stage, random-effects meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of treatment in reducing the duration of illness, estimated using differences in restricted mean survival time (RMST) by treatment group. We also examined complications and safety. We identified 5 trials that included 2561 patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and 1598 in the intention-to-treat infected (ITTI) populations. Overall, oseltamivir treatment significantly reduced the duration of illness in the ITTI population (RMST difference, -17.6 hours; 95% confidence interval [CI], -34.7 to -0.62 hours). In trials that enrolled patients without asthma, the difference was larger (-29.9 hours; 95% CI, -53.9 to -5.8 hours). Risk of otitis media was 34% lower in the ITTI population. Vomiting was the only adverse event with a significantly higher risk in the treatment group. Despite substantial heterogeneity in pediatric trials, we found that treatment with oseltamivir significantly reduced the duration of illness in those with influenza and lowered the risk of developing otitis media. Alternative endpoints may be required to evaluate the efficacy of oseltamivir in pediatric patients with asthma.

Efficacy and safety of oseltamivir in children with suspected influenza: a multicenter randomized open-label trial

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oseltamivir in the treatment of suspected influenza in children. Method: A multicenter, randomized and open-label trial was conducted among 229 individuals with suspected influenza which were collected from the clinic of 5 hospitals in Guangdong province (Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Shenzhen Baoan District Maternity and Child Care Service Center, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Dongguan Maternity and Child Care Service Centre, Yuexiu District Children's Hospital of Guangzhou) from April to July 2015. They were randomized either to oseltamivir group (oseltamivir 30-75 mg, twice daily for 5 days) or control group who were given symptom relief medicines for 5 days. Result: No significant difference was found between two groups in influenza symptoms of the patients before the treatment(P>0.05). Altogether 229 individuals (114 in oseltamivir group, 115 in control group) were analyzed for efficacy, in which 73 individuals (42 oseltamivir, 31 control), 31.9%, were identified as influenza-infected through laboratory test. No significant difference was found between the two groups in the duration of fever although shortened. In the 229 individuals , the cumulative alleviation proportion between oseltamivir and control group was not significantly different (P>0.05): the median duration of illness was 69.9 hours (95% CI 65.3-91.5) in oseltamivir group and 75.4 hours (95%CI 63.9-91. 7) in control group; the median duration of fever was 40.4 hours (95%CI 31.5-53.4) in oseltamivir group and 44.0 hours (95%CI 33.2-50.0) in control group. In the 73 individuals, the cumulative alleviation proportion between oseltamivir and control group was significantly different (P<0.05). The median duration of illness was 61.2 hours (95%CI 48.0-121. 0) in oseltamivir group, being significantly shorter than that of 116.0 hours (95%CI 91.5-175.0) in control group. But it was not significantly different that the median duration of fever was 32.8 hours (95%CI 24.0-47.0 ) in oseltamivir group and 55.8 hours (95%CI 43.6-78.3 ) in control group (P>0.05). And the median duration of fever in 60 individuals (38 oseltamivir, 22 control) was significantly different between two groups(P<0.05), who had finished a course of taking oseltamivir in the 73 individuals, 34.8 hours (95%CI 24.0-48.5 ) in oseltamivir group being significantly shorter than that of 53.3 hours (95%CI 43.6-104.0 ) in control group. There was certain difference in side effects rate between the two groups (oseltamivir 10%, control 2%, P<0.05). The main side-effects were gastrointestinal symptoms (stomachache, diarrhea, poor appetite, vomiting). Conclusion: The duration of illness and fever in suspected influenza patients treated with oseltamivir was shorter than those in the patients treated with no oseltamivir, the difference was not statistically significant, when 31.9% was confirmed with positive result of virus test in suspected influenza in children. But in these patients with positive result of virus test, the duration of illness was significantly shortened with treatment with oseltamivir as compared with no treatment with oseltamivir, and it would be better if full oseltamivir course was completed for reducing the duration of fever. Oseltamivir treatment was safe with mild side effects.

Pharmacokinetics of oseltamivir in infants under the age of 1 year.

BackgroundOseltamivir is the only antiviral treatment recommended for influenza in young children over the age of 1 year. There is scant data on oseltamivir pharmacokinetics (PK) in infants <1 year. We set out to perform PK measurements in infants who received oseltamivir.MethodsThis study was a prospective, uncontrolled, open label evaluation of the pharmacokinetics of oseltamivir metabolism, safety of oseltamivir, viral clearance in infants <12 months diagnosed with influenza by nasopharyngeal influenza nucleic acid antigen test (NAAT). Blood levels of the prodrug oseltamivir and its active carboxylate were measured prior to a dose of oseltamivir and at 4 time points afterwards, to calculate Cmax (ng/mL), Tmax (h), AUC0−t (ng h/mL) and time for AUC (h).ResultsFour children with influenza A received oral oseltamivir, 2.35–3 mg/kg/dose. This dose range produced a target oseltamivir carboxylate plasma concentration in excess of the proposed 12-h target AUC of 3800 ng h/mL, selected from earlier studies to avert resistance. One patient developed GIT adverse event: dry retching.ConclusionOseltamivir was well tolerated at a dose of 2.35–3 mg/kg/dose twice a day in infants under the age of 1 year. In general agreement with earlier data, these doses produced a target oseltamivir carboxylate plasma exposure in excess of the proposed 12-h target exposure of AUC equal to 3800 ng h/mL in two patients. The limited plasma concentration data in the remaining two patients were not inconsistent with the target exposure being reached.

Safety of oseltamivir in infants less than one year old: Prospective surveillance during the 2004–2005 influenza season in Japan

The aim of this study was to investigate the treatment of influenza and safety of oseltamivir in infants less than 1 year of age. All-patient surveillance was conducted using centralized enrolment at 219 medical institutions. Safety data were collected for 1,663 patients less than 1 year of age who developed influenza during the 2004–2005 influenza season. Patients were stratified into three groups: patients not treated with a drug (Group A), patients treated with oseltamivir (Group B), and patients treated with a drug other than an antiviral agent (Group C). Significant differences (P = 0.0074, P Our analysis of the safety of oseltamivir in infants less than 1 year of age revealed clinical acceptance of safety issues.

Investigation of the safety of oseltamivir in infants less than 1 year of age infected with influenza, 2003/2004 season in Japan

The aim of this study was to investigate the safety of oselta mivir in Japanese patients less than 1 year of age infected with influenza A or B. The study was retrospective and surveil lance forms were used to collect safety data for all influenza -infected infants administered oseltamivir during the 2003/2004 infl uenza season in the 157 participating facilities. Seven hundred seventy one children (mean age 272 ± 74.86 days, range 15 to 366 days) were treated with oseltamivir at a mean dose of 3.84 ± 0.51 mg/kg/day (range 1.85 to 6.25 mg). The incidence of adverse events (AEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) was 5.3% (41 of 771 patients) and 3.2% (25 of 771 patients), respectively. Among the 51 AEs reported in 41 patients, gastrointestinal disorders were the most frequent (2.5% (19 of 771 patients)), with diarrhoea (n = 15) and vomiting (n = 6). Gastrointestinal disorders were also the most frequently reported ADRs, with diarrhoea (n = 13) and vomiting (n = 5). Four patients with afebrile or febrile convulsions (n = 3) and respiratory failure (n = 1) with fatal outcome were probably caused by serious AEs. Influenza infection accompanying with high fever is well known to cause these events in infants. This paper has concluded effective treatment of oseltamivir administration in influenza-infe cted infants less than 1 year of age; and it does not raise any s afety concerns. Therefore, a further prospective survey to eluci date the ADRs should be carried out.

Safety of oseltamivir during pregnancy: a comparative study using the EFEMERIS database

To compare pregnancy outcome between women exposed and unexposed to oseltamivir during pregnancy. A comparative observational cohort study of women exposed to oseltamivir during pregnancy. A French prescription database (EFEMERIS) that includes data for pregnant women was used. EFEMERIS records prescribed and dispensed reimbursed drugs during pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes in Haute-Garonne, South West France. Women who delivered from 1 July 2004 to 31 December 2010. The study compared exposed and unexposed pregnant women. Two women unexposed to oseltamivir were individually matched, by maternal age, month, and year of delivery, with one women exposed to oseltamivir. Multivariable conditional logistic regression and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression were used to evaluate associations between each outcome and exposure to oseltamivir during pregnancy. Pregnancy loss for any cause, preterm delivery, low birthweight, neonatal pathology, and congenital malformation. A cohort of 337 (0.58% of women included in EFEMERIS) women exposed to oseltamivir were compared with 674 unexposed women. The risk for pregnancy loss (HR 1.52; 95% CI 0.80-2.91), for preterm birth (adjusted OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.31-1.27), and for neonatal pathology (adjusted OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.23-1.54) did not differ between exposed and unexposed groups. When exposure during organogenesis was considered, one case of congenital anomaly (2.0%) among 49 exposed women and one case (1.0%) among 99 unexposed women were observed (crude OR 2.00; 95% CI 0.13-32.00). There was no significant association between adverse pregnancy outcomes and exposure to oseltamivir during pregnancy.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of oseltamivir and zanamivir in pandemic influenza treatment

Aim:In 2009, a flu pandemic caused panic worldwide. Oseltamivir and zanamivir were widely used in this pandemic. Currently, there are a limited number of studies comparing the efficacy and tolerability of these two drugs. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of these two drugs in the treatment of influenza.Materials and Methods:Patients diagnosed with influenza at our infectious disease outpatient clinic during the influenza season between October 1, 2009 and February 1, 2010 were included in the study. Study data were obtained retrospectively from files for consecutive patients. A total of 136 subjects were selected. After exclusion criteria were applied, 56 subjects were discarded. The information for 80 patients in whom oseltamivir or zanamivir therapy was initiated (40 for each therapy) was compiled, and the efficacy and tolerability of the drugs were compared.Results:There was no significant difference in efficacy for the two drugs (P > 0.05). Temperature normalization was significantly faster in patients taking zanamivir (P = 0.0157). Drowsiness was the most frequent adverse event for both drugs (38% for the oseltamivir group, and 22% for the zanamivir group). Respiratory distress was observed in five patients in the zanamivir group, whereas it was not observed in patients in the oseltamivir group (P < 0.05). One patient had to discontinue therapy in the zanamivir group due to respiratory distress.Conclusion:Efficacy (in terms of symptom relief and duration to resumption of work) and adverse events were similar for zanamivir and oseltamivir, but temperature normalization was much more rapid in patients using zanamivir. Patients using zanamivir should be monitored for respiratory distress.

Oseltamivir Compared With the Chinese Traditional Therapy Maxingshigan–Yinqiaosan in the Treatment of H1N1 Influenza

Observational studies from Asia suggest that maxingshigan-yinqiaosan may be effective in the treatment of acute H1N1 influenza. To compare the efficacy and safety of oseltamivir and maxingshigan-yinqiaosan in treating uncomplicated H1N1 influenza. Prospective, nonblinded, randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00935194) Eleven hospitals from 4 provinces in China. 410 persons [corrected] aged 15 to 69 [corrected] years with laboratory-confirmed H1N1 influenza. Oseltamivir, 75 mg twice daily; maxingshigan-yinqiaosan decoction (composed of 12 Chinese herbal medicines, including honey-fried Herba Ephedrae), 200 mL 4 times daily; oseltamivir plus maxingshigan-yinqiaosan; or no intervention (control). Interventions and control were given for 5 days. Primary outcome was time to fever resolution. Secondary outcomes included symptom scores and viral shedding determined by using real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Significant reductions in the estimated median time to fever resolution compared with the control group (26.0 hours [95% CI, 24.0 to 33.0 hours]) were seen with oseltamivir (34% [95% CI, 20% to 46%]; P < 0.001), maxingshigan-yinqiaosan (37% [CI, 23% to 49%]; P < 0.001), and oseltamivir plus maxingshigan-yinqiaosan (47% [CI, 35% to 56%]; P < 0.001). Time to fever resolution was reduced by 19% (CI, 0.3% to 34%; P = 0.05) with oseltamivir plus maxingshigan-yinqiaosan compared with oseltamivir. The interventions and control did not differ in terms of decrease in symptom scores (P = 0.38). Two patients who received maxingshigan-yinqiaosan reported nausea and vomiting. Participants were young and had mild H1N1 influenza virus infection. Missing viral data precluded definitive conclusions about viral shedding. Oseltamivir and maxingshigan-yinqiaosan, alone and in combination, reduced time to fever resolution in patients with H1N1 influenza virus infection. These data suggest that maxingshigan-yinqiaosan may be used as an alternative treatment of H1N1 influenza virus infection. Beijing Science and Technology Project and Beijing Nova Program.

Adverse drug reaction profile of oseltamivir in children

Aim:To monitor and evaluate the pattern of ADRs to oseltamivir in pediatric population suffering from H1N1 influenza at a tertiary care hospital.Materials and Methods:Children offered oseltamivir for treatment and chemoprophylaxis were monitored for adverse events by direct questioning for symptoms and clinical examination on day 5 and day 10. Assessment of neurological events was done by asking the parents or guardians regarding development of specific symptoms. Adverse events obtained were analyzed for severity, causality and age-group wise.Results:Out of 191 children (median age, 3 years), 69 (36.1%) developed ADRs. Most common symptoms were vomiting (16.2%) followed by diarrhea (12.0%), ear disorders (8.9%), and insomnia (6.8%). The incidence of neuropsychiatric symptoms was 12.6% which were mild-to-moderate on severity scale. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between children less than 1 year and other age groups.Conclusion:Oseltamivir is well tolerated in Indian children with suspected or confirmed H1N1 influenza. Our study also indicates safety of oseltamivir in infants.

Oseltamivir-Induced Mania in a Patient With H1N1

Oseltamivir-Induced Mania in a Patient With H1N1

Efficacy and safety of oseltamivir in treatment of acute influenza: a randomised controlled trial

Use of some antiviral drugs for influenza infection is limited by potential rapid emergence of resistance. We studied the efficacy and safety of oseltamivir, the oral prodrug of the neuraminidase inhibitor GS4071, in adults with naturally acquired laboratory-confirmed influenza. We did a randomised controlled trial of 726 previously healthy non-immunised adults with febrile influenza-like illness of up to 36 h duration. Patients were assigned oral oseltamivir 75 mg (n=243), oseltamivir 150 mg (n=245), or placebo (n=238) twice daily for 5 days. We assessed recovery by questionnaire and temperature recordings. The primary endpoint was time to resolution of illness in influenza-infected patients. 475 (66%) patients had confirmed infection. Duration of illness was significantly shorter by 29 h (25% reduction, median duration 87.4 h [95% CI 73.3-104.7], p=0.02) with oseltamivir 75 mg and by 35 h (30%, 81.8 h [68.2-100.0], p=0.01) with oseltamivir 150 mg than with placebo (116.5 h [101.5-137.8]). The effect of oseltamivir was apparent within 24 h of the start of treatment. In patients treated within 24 h of symptom onset, symptoms were alleviated 43 h (37% reduction) and 47 h (40%) earlier with oseltamivir 75 mg and 150 mg, respectively, compared with placebo (75 mg 74.5 h [68.2-98.0], p=0.02; 150 mg 70.7 h [54.0-89.4], p=0.01; placebo 117.5 h [103.0-143.8]). Oseltamivir was associated with lower [corrected] symptom scores, less viral shedding, and improved health, activity, and sleep quality, and was well tolerated. Oseltamivir was effective and well tolerated in the treatment of natural influenza infection in adults. The efficacy, tolerability, and ease of administration warrant further investigation in children, elderly patients, and at-risk patients.