Ingvil von Mehren Sæterdal

Antivirals for treatment of influenza: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

BACKGROUND Systematic reviews of randomized, controlled trials in patients with influenza suggest a lack of evidence about the effects of antiviral therapy on several patient-important outcomes of influenza. PURPOSE To systematically review observational studies for benefits and harms of oseltamivir, zanamivir, amantadine, or rimantadine in the treatment of influenza. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, SIGLE, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Panteleimon, and LILACS up to November 2010; contact with pharmaceutical companies; and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION Observational studies in any language that compared single antiviral therapy with no therapy or other antiviral therapy, or that had no comparator, for influenza or influenza-like illness. DATA EXTRACTION Two independent investigators extracted data. Confidence in the estimates of the obtained effects (quality of evidence) was assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. DATA SYNTHESIS 74 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses of the few studies providing effects with adjustment for confounders suggest that, in high-risk populations, oral oseltamivir may reduce mortality (odds ratio, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.13 to 0.43]; low-quality evidence), hospitalization (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.66 to 0.89]; low-quality evidence), and duration of symptoms (33 hours [CI, 21 to 45 hours]; very low-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. Earlier treatment with oseltamivir was generally associated with better outcomes. Inhaled zanamivir may lead to shorter symptom duration (23 hours [CI, 17 to 28 hours]; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer hospitalizations (odds ratio, 0.66 [CI, 0.37 to 1.18]) but more complications than no treatment. Direct comparison of oral oseltamivir and inhaled zanamivir suggests no important differences in key outcomes. Data from 1 study suggest that oral amantadine may reduce mortality and pneumonia associated with influenza A. No included study evaluated rimantadine. LIMITATIONS Mortality was assessed in high-risk patients, and generalizability is limited. The overall body of evidence is limited by risk for confounding and selection, reporting, and publication bias. CONCLUSION Therapy with oral oseltamivir and inhaled zanamivir may provide a net benefit over no treatment of influenza. However, as with the randomized trials, the confidence in the estimates of the effects for decision making is low to very low. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCES: World Health Organization and McMaster University.

Antivirals for influenza: a summary of a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Despite the use of antivirals to treat patients with severe influenza, questions remain with respect to effects and safety. Although a recent systematic review has provided some indication of benefit, the analysis is limited by the quality of the available evidence from randomized controlled trials. To supplement the existing information, the authors conducted a systematic review of observational studies of antiviral treatment for influenza. This report summarises the findings of that review. Similar to the randomised trials, the confidence in the estimates of the effects for decision‐making is low to very low primarily due to the risk of selection and publication bias in the observational studies. From these observational studies, the summary estimates suggest that oseltamivir may reduce mortality, hospitalisation and duration of symptoms compared with no treatment. Inhaled zanamivir may also reduce symptom duration and hospitalisations, but patients may experience more complications compared with no treatment. Earlier treatment with antivirals is generally associated with better outcomes than later treatment. Further high‐quality evidence is needed to inform treatment guidelines because of the overall low to very low quality of evidence.

Multiple treatment comparison of seven new drugs for patients with advanced malignant melanoma: a systematic review and health economic decision model in a Norwegian setting

Objective To assess the relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of seven new drugs (cobimetinib, dabrafenib, ipilimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, trametinib and vemurafenib) used for treatment of patients with advanced malignant melanoma in the Norwegian setting. Design A multiple technology assessment. Patients Patients with advanced malignant melanoma aged 18 or older. Data sources A systematic search for randomised controlled trials in relevant bibliographic databases. Methods We performed network meta-analyses using both direct and indirect evidence with dacarbazine as a common comparator. We ranked the different treatments in terms of their likelihood of leading to the best results for each endpoint. The cost-utility analysis was based on a probabilistic discrete-time Markov cohort model. The model calculated the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with different treatment strategies from a healthcare perspective. Sensitivity analysis was performed by means of Monte Carlo simulation. Results Monotherapies with a programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) immune-checkpoint-inhibitor had a higher probability of good performance for overall survival than monotherapies with ipilimumab or BRAF/MEK inhibitors. The combination treatments had all similar levels of effectiveness to the PD-1 immune-checkpoint-inhibitors. PD-1 immune-checkpoint-inhibitors are more effective and more costly compared with ipilimumab in monotherapy. Nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab had higher costs and the same level of effectiveness as the PD-1 immune-checkpoint-inhibitors in monotherapy. BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations (dabrafenib and trametinib or vemurafenib and cobimetinib) had both similar effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; however, the combination therapies are more likely to give higher quality adjusted life year gains than BRAF or MEK inhibitor monotherapies, but to a higher cost. Conclusions None of the drugs investigated can be considered cost-effective at what has normally been considered a reasonable willingness-to-pay (WTP) in Norway. Price reductions (from the official list prices) in the region of 63%–84% would be necessary for these drugs to be cost-effective at a WTP of €55 850 per QALY.