Cochrane Neuraminidase Inhibitors Review Team. Does oseltamivir really reduce complications of influenza?

SCARLET (Supplemental Citicoline Administration to Reduce Lung injury Efficacy Trial): study protocol for a single-site, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, and randomized Phase 1/2 trial of i.v. citicoline (CDP-choline) in hospitalized SARS CoV-2-infected patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure

BACKGROUND

The SARS CoV-2 pandemic has resulted in more than 1.1 million deaths in the USA alone. Therapeutic options for critically ill patients with COVID-19 are limited. Prior studies showed that post-infection treatment of influenza A virus-infected mice with the liponucleotide CDP-choline, which is an essential precursor for de novo phosphatidylcholine synthesis, improved gas exchange and reduced pulmonary inflammation without altering viral replication. In unpublished studies, we found that treatment of SARS CoV-2-infected K18-hACE2-transgenic mice with CDP-choline prevented development of hypoxemia. We hypothesize that administration of citicoline (the pharmaceutical form of CDP-choline) will be safe in hospitalized SARS CoV-2-infected patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (HARF) and that we will obtain preliminary evidence of clinical benefit to support a larger Phase 3 trial using one or more citicoline doses.

METHODS

We will conduct a single-site, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, and randomized Phase 1/2 dose-ranging and safety study of Somazina® citicoline solution for injection in consented adults of any sex, gender, age, or ethnicity hospitalized for SARS CoV-2-associated HARF. The trial is named "SCARLET" (Supplemental Citicoline Administration to Reduce Lung injury Efficacy Trial). We hypothesize that SCARLET will show that i.v. citicoline is safe at one or more of three doses (0.5, 2.5, or 5 mg/kg, every 12 h for 5 days) in hospitalized SARS CoV-2-infected patients with HARF (20 per dose) and provide preliminary evidence that i.v. citicoline improves pulmonary outcomes in this population. The primary efficacy outcome will be the SpO2:FiO2 ratio on study day 3. Exploratory outcomes include Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores, dead space ventilation index, and lung compliance. Citicoline effects on a panel of COVID-relevant lung and blood biomarkers will also be determined.

DISCUSSION

Citicoline has many characteristics that would be advantageous to any candidate COVID-19 therapeutic, including safety, low-cost, favorable chemical characteristics, and potentially pathogen-agnostic efficacy. Successful demonstration that citicoline is beneficial in severely ill patients with SARS CoV-2-induced HARF could transform management of severely ill COVID patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered at www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov on 5/31/2023 (NCT05881135).

TRIAL STATUS

Currently enrolling.

Neuraminidase inhibitors for influenza: a systematic review and meta-analysis of regulatory and mortality data

BACKGROUND

Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are stockpiled and recommended by public health agencies for treating and preventing seasonal and pandemic influenza. They are used clinically worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

To (1) describe the potential benefits and harms of NIs for influenza in all age groups by reviewing all clinical study reports (CSRs) of published and unpublished randomised, placebo-controlled trials and regulatory comments; and (2) determine the effect of oseltamivir (Tamiflu(®), Roche) treatment on mortality in patients with 2009A/H1N1 influenza.

METHODS

We searched trial registries, electronic databases and corresponded with regulators and sponsors to identify randomised trials of NIs. We requested full CSRs and accessed regulators' comments. We included only those trials for which we had CSRs. To examine the effects of oseltamivir on 2009A/H1N1 influenza mortality, we requested individual patient data (IPD) from corresponding authors of all included observational studies.

RESULTS

Effect of oseltamivir and zanamivir (Relenza®, GlaxoSmithKline) in the prevention and treatment of influenza: Oseltamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults by 16.8 hours [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.4 to 25.1 hours]. Zanamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults by 0.60 days (95% CI 0.39 to 0.81 days). Oseltamivir reduced unverified pneumonia in adult treatment [risk difference (RD) 1.00%, 95% CI 0.22% to 1.49%]; similar findings were observed with zanamivir prophylaxis in adults (RD 0.32%, 95% CI 0.09% to 0.41%). Oseltamivir treatment of adults increased the risk of nausea (RD 3.66%, 95% CI 0.90% to 7.39%) and vomiting (RD 4.56%, 95% CI 2.39% to 7.58%). In the treatment of children, oseltamivir induced vomiting (RD 5.34%, 95% CI 1.75% to 10.29%). Both oseltamivir and zanamivir prophylaxis reduced the risk of symptomatic influenza in individuals (oseltamivir RD 3.05%, 95% CI 1.83% to 3.88%; zanamivir RD 1.98%, 95% CI 0.98% to 2.54%) and in households (oseltamivir RD 13.6%, 95% CI 9.52% to 15.47%; zanamivir RD 14.84%, 95% CI 12.18% to 16.55%). Oseltamivir increased psychiatric adverse events in the combined on- and off-treatment periods (RD 1.06%, 95% CI 0.07% to 2.76%) and the risk of headaches while on treatment (RD 3.15%, 95% CI 0.88% to 5.78%). Effect of oseltamivir on mortality in patients with 2009A/H1N1 influenza: Analysis of summary data of 30 studies as well as IPD of four studies showed evidence of time-dependent bias. After adjusting for time-dependent bias and potential confounding variables, competing risks analysis of the IPD showed insufficient evidence that oseltamivir reduced the risk of mortality (hazard ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.65).

CONCLUSIONS

Oseltamivir and zanamivir cause small reductions in the time to first alleviation of influenza symptoms in adults. The use of oseltamivir increases the risk of nausea, vomiting, psychiatric events in adults and vomiting in children. Oseltamivir has no protective effect on mortality among patients with 2009A/H1N1 influenza. Prophylaxis with either NI may reduce symptomatic influenza in individuals and in households. The balance between benefits and harms should be considered when making decisions about use of NIs for either prophylaxis or treatment of influenza.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002245.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

TGF-β-induced IL-6 prevents development of acute lung injury in influenza A virus-infected F508del CFTR-heterozygous mice

As the eighth leading cause of annual mortality in the USA, influenza A viruses are a major public health concern. In 20% of patients, severe influenza progresses to acute lung injury (ALI). However, pathophysiological mechanisms underlying ALI development are poorly defined. We reported that, unlike wild-type (WT) C57BL/6 controls, influenza A virus-infected mice that are heterozygous for the F508del mutation in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (HETs) did not develop ALI. This effect was associated with higher IL-6 and alveolar macrophages (AMs) at 6 days postinfection (d.p.i.) in HET bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF). In the present study, we found that HET AMs were an important source of IL-6 at 6 d.p.i. Infection also induced TGF-β production by HET but not WT mice at 2 d.p.i. TGF-β neutralization at 2 d.p.i. (TGF-N) significantly reduced BALF IL-6 in HETs at 6 d.p.i. Neither TGF-N nor IL-6 neutralization at 4 d.p.i. (IL-6-N) altered postinfection weight loss or viral replication in either mouse strain. However, both treatments increased influenza A virus-induced hypoxemia, pulmonary edema, and lung dysfunction in HETs to WT levels at 6 d.p.i. TGF-N and IL-6-N did not affect BALF AM and neutrophil numbers but attenuated the CXCL-1/keratinocyte chemokine response in both strains and reduced IFN-γ production in WT mice. Finally, bone marrow transfer experiments showed that HET stromal and myeloid cells are both required for protection from ALI in HETs. These findings indicate that TGF-β-dependent production of IL-6 by AMs later in infection prevents ALI development in influenza A virus-infected HET mice.

Infection of mice with influenza A/WSN/33 (H1N1) virus alters alveolar type II cell phenotype

Influenza viruses cause acute respiratory disease of great importance to public health. Alveolar type II (ATII) respiratory epithelial cells are central to normal lung function and are a site of influenza A virus replication in the distal lung. However, the consequences of infection for ATII cell function are poorly understood. To determine the impact of influenza infection on ATII cells we used C57BL/6-congenic SP-C(GFP) mice that express green fluorescent protein (GFP) under the control of the surfactant protein-C (SP-C) promoter, which is only active in ATII cells. Most cells isolated from the lungs of uninfected SP-C(GFP) mice were GFP(+) but did not express the alveolar type I (ATI) antigen podoplanin (PODO). ATII cells were also EpCAM(+) and α2,3-linked sialosaccharide(+). Infection with influenza A/WSN/33 virus caused severe hypoxemia and pulmonary edema. This was accompanied by loss of whole lung GFP fluorescence, reduced ATII cell yields, increased ATII cell apoptosis, reduced SP-C gene and protein expression in ATII cell lysates, and increased PODO gene and protein levels. Flow cytometry indicated that infection decreased GFP(+)/PODO(-) cells and increased GFP(-)/PODO(+) and GFP(-)/PODO(-) cells. Very few GFP(+)/PODO(+) cells were detectable. Finally, infection resulted in a significant decline in EpCAM expression by PODO(+) cells, but had limited effects on α2,3-linked sialosaccharides. Our findings indicate that influenza infection results in a progressive differentiation of ATII cells into ATI-like cells, possibly via an SP-C(-)/PODO(-) intermediate, to replace dying or dead ATI cells. However, impaired SP-C synthesis is likely to contribute significantly to reduced lung compliance in infected mice.

Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are stockpiled and recommended by public health agencies for treating and preventing seasonal and pandemic influenza. They are used clinically worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the potential benefits and harms of NIs for influenza in all age groups by reviewing all clinical study reports of published and unpublished randomised, placebo-controlled trials and regulatory comments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched trial registries, electronic databases (to 22 July 2013) and regulatory archives, and corresponded with manufacturers to identify all trials. We also requested clinical study reports. We focused on the primary data sources of manufacturers but we checked that there were no published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from non-manufacturer sources by running electronic searches in the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Embase.com, PubMed (not MEDLINE), the Database of Reviews of Effects, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Economic Evaluations Database.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, placebo-controlled trials on adults and children with confirmed or suspected exposure to naturally occurring influenza.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted clinical study reports and assessed risk of bias using purpose-built instruments. We analysed the effects of zanamivir and oseltamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms, influenza outcomes, complications, hospitalisations and adverse events in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. All trials were sponsored by the manufacturers.

MAIN RESULTS

We obtained 107 clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), GlaxoSmithKline and Roche. We accessed comments by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), EMA and Japanese regulator. We included 53 trials in Stage 1 (a judgement of appropriate study design) and 46 in Stage 2 (formal analysis), including 20 oseltamivir (9623 participants) and 26 zanamivir trials (14,628 participants). Inadequate reporting put most of the zanamivir studies and half of the oseltamivir studies at a high risk of selection bias. There were inadequate measures in place to protect 11 studies of oseltamivir from performance bias due to non-identical presentation of placebo. Attrition bias was high across the oseltamivir studies and there was also evidence of selective reporting for both the zanamivir and oseltamivir studies. The placebo interventions in both sets of trials may have contained active substances. Time to first symptom alleviation. For the treatment of adults, oseltamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms by 16.8 hours (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.4 to 25.1 hours, P < 0.0001). This represents a reduction in the time to first alleviation of symptoms from 7 to 6.3 days. There was no effect in asthmatic children, but in otherwise healthy children there was (reduction by a mean difference of 29 hours, 95% CI 12 to 47 hours, P = 0.001). Zanamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults by 0.60 days (95% CI 0.39 to 0.81 days, P < 0.00001), equating to a reduction in the mean duration of symptoms from 6.6 to 6.0 days. The effect in children was not significant. In subgroup analysis we found no evidence of a difference in treatment effect for zanamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults in the influenza-infected and non-influenza-infected subgroups (P = 0.53). Hospitalisations. Treatment of adults with oseltamivir had no significant effect on hospitalisations: risk difference (RD) 0.15% (95% CI -0.78 to 0.91). There was also no significant effect in children or in prophylaxis. Zanamivir hospitalisation data were unreported. Serious influenza complications or those leading to study withdrawal. In adult treatment trials, oseltamivir did not significantly reduce those complications classified as serious or those which led to study withdrawal (RD 0.07%, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.44), nor in child treatment trials; neither did zanamivir in the treatment of adults or in prophylaxis. There were insufficient events to compare this outcome for oseltamivir in prophylaxis or zanamivir in the treatment of children. Pneumonia. Oseltamivir significantly reduced self reported, investigator-mediated, unverified pneumonia (RD 1.00%, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.49); number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 100 (95% CI 67 to 451) in the treated population. The effect was not significant in the five trials that used a more detailed diagnostic form for pneumonia. There were no definitions of pneumonia (or other complications) in any trial. No oseltamivir treatment studies reported effects on radiologically confirmed pneumonia. There was no significant effect on unverified pneumonia in children. There was no significant effect of zanamivir on either self reported or radiologically confirmed pneumonia. In prophylaxis, zanamivir significantly reduced the risk of self reported, investigator-mediated, unverified pneumonia in adults (RD 0.32%, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.41); NNTB = 311 (95% CI 244 to 1086), but not oseltamivir. Bronchitis, sinusitis and otitis media. Zanamivir significantly reduced the risk of bronchitis in adult treatment trials (RD 1.80%, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.80); NNTB = 56 (36 to 155), but not oseltamivir. Neither NI significantly reduced the risk of otitis media and sinusitis in both adults and children. Harms of treatment. Oseltamivir in the treatment of adults increased the risk of nausea (RD 3.66%, 95% CI 0.90 to 7.39); number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) = 28 (95% CI 14 to 112) and vomiting (RD 4.56%, 95% CI 2.39 to 7.58); NNTH = 22 (14 to 42). The proportion of participants with four-fold increases in antibody titre was significantly lower in the treated group compared to the control group (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.97, I(2) statistic = 0%) (5% absolute difference between arms). Oseltamivir significantly decreased the risk of diarrhoea (RD 2.33%, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.81); NNTB = 43 (95% CI 27 to 709) and cardiac events (RD 0.68%, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.0); NNTB = 148 (101 to 2509) compared to placebo during the on-treatment period. There was a dose-response effect on psychiatric events in the two oseltamivir "pivotal" treatment trials, WV15670 and WV15671, at 150 mg (standard dose) and 300 mg daily (high dose) (P = 0.038). In the treatment of children, oseltamivir induced vomiting (RD 5.34%, 95% CI 1.75 to 10.29); NNTH = 19 (95% CI 10 to 57). There was a significantly lower proportion of children on oseltamivir with a four-fold increase in antibodies (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00, I(2) = 0%). Prophylaxis. In prophylaxis trials, oseltamivir and zanamivir reduced the risk of symptomatic influenza in individuals (oseltamivir: RD 3.05% (95% CI 1.83 to 3.88); NNTB = 33 (26 to 55); zanamivir: RD 1.98% (95% CI 0.98 to 2.54); NNTB = 51 (40 to 103)) and in households (oseltamivir: RD 13.6% (95% CI 9.52 to 15.47); NNTB = 7 (6 to 11); zanamivir: RD 14.84% (95% CI 12.18 to 16.55); NNTB = 7 (7 to 9)). There was no significant effect on asymptomatic influenza (oseltamivir: RR 1.14 (95% CI 0.39 to 3.33); zanamivir: RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.24)). Non-influenza, influenza-like illness could not be assessed due to data not being fully reported. In oseltamivir prophylaxis studies, psychiatric adverse events were increased in the combined on- and off-treatment periods (RD 1.06%, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.76); NNTH = 94 (95% CI 36 to 1538) in the study treatment population. Oseltamivir increased the risk of headaches whilst on treatment (RD 3.15%, 95% CI 0.88 to 5.78); NNTH = 32 (95% CI 18 to 115), renal events whilst on treatment (RD 0.67%, 95% CI -2.93 to 0.01); NNTH = 150 (NNTH 35 to NNTB > 1000) and nausea whilst on treatment (RD 4.15%, 95% CI 0.86 to 9.51); NNTH = 25 (95% CI 11 to 116).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oseltamivir and zanamivir have small, non-specific effects on reducing the time to alleviation of influenza symptoms in adults, but not in asthmatic children. Using either drug as prophylaxis reduces the risk of developing symptomatic influenza. Treatment trials with oseltamivir or zanamivir do not settle the question of whether the complications of influenza (such as pneumonia) are reduced, because of a lack of diagnostic definitions. The use of oseltamivir increases the risk of adverse effects, such as nausea, vomiting, psychiatric effects and renal events in adults and vomiting in children. The lower bioavailability may explain the lower toxicity of zanamivir compared to oseltamivir. The balance between benefits and harms should be considered when making decisions about use of both NIs for either the prophylaxis or treatment of influenza. The influenza virus-specific mechanism of action proposed by the producers does not fit the clinical evidence.

The value of neuraminidase inhibitors for the prevention and treatment of seasonal influenza: a systematic review of systematic reviews

Controversy has arisen regarding the effectiveness of neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs), especially against influenza-related complications. A literature search was performed to critically assess the evidence collected by the available systematic reviews (SRs) regarding the benefits and disadvantages of NIs (oseltamivir, zanamivir) compared to placebos in healthy and at-risk individuals of all ages for prophylaxis and treatment of seasonal influenza. A SR was done using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Health Technology Assessment Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Medline (January 2006-July 2012). Two reviewers selected SRs based on randomized clinical trials, which were restricted to intention-to-treat results, and they assessed review (AMSTAR) and study quality indicators (GRADE). The SRs included (N = 9) were of high quality. The efficacy of NIs in prophylaxis ranged from 64% (16-85) to 92% (37-99); the absolute risk reduction ranged from 1.2% to 12.1% (GRADE moderate to low). Clinically relevant treatment benefits of NIs were small in healthy adults and children suffering from influenza-like illness (GRADE high to moderate). Oseltamivir reduced antibiotic usage in healthy adults according to one SR, but this was not confirmed by other reviews (GRADE low). Zanamivir showed a preventive effect on antibiotic usage in children (95% (77-99);GRADE moderate) and on the occurrence of bronchitis in at-risk individuals (59% (30-76);GRADE moderate). No evidence was available on the treatment benefits of NIs in elderly and at-risk groups and their effects on hospitalization and mortality. In oseltamivir trials, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea were significant side-effects. For zanamivir trials, no adverse effects have been reported. The combination of diagnostic uncertainty, the risk for virus strain resistance, possible side effects and financial cost outweigh the small benefits of oseltamivir or zanamivir for the prophylaxis and treatment of healthy individuals. No relevant benefits of these NIs on complications in at-risk individuals have been established.

Prospects for molecular point-of-care diagnosis of lower respiratory infections at the hospital’s doorstep

Now that molecular assays have been simplified, they can be performed at the point of care (POC). As we aimed to evaluate POC detection of respiratory viruses, we have collected studies on the molecular detection of viruses in children and adults with a well-characterized diagnosis, made in hospital settings, of community-acquired acute bronchiolitis (AB) or pneumonia (CAP). We then present the epidemiological issues for each disease. The prevalence of 18 virus species and types was determined separately for each disease, virus by virus. Overall, the median detection rate of viruses was 90% (interquartile range [IQR]: 69.25–93.5%) and 71.8% (IQR: 69.25–74.25%) in children with AB and CAP, respectively, and 24.5% (IQR: 20–30%) in adults with CAP. The observations on the relationship between virological findings and severity of disease were conflicting in AB, while those for influenza-related CAP were significantly associated with high morbidity/mortality. There is evidence supporting the suggestion that molecular POC detection of targeted pathogens could optimize bed management in emergency departments, guide anti-infective therapies and prevent nosocomial outbreaks. However, further investigations are required to determine when the detection of a large panel of viruses should be processed in clinical practice.

Postinfection A77-1726 treatment improves cardiopulmonary function in H1N1 influenza-infected mice

Acute respiratory disease is associated with significant morbidity and mortality in influenza. Because antiviral drugs are only effective early in infection, new agents are needed to treat nonvaccinated patients presenting with late-stage disease, particularly those who develop acute respiratory distress syndrome. We found previously that the de novo pyrimidine synthesis inhibitor A77-1726 reversed the influenza-induced impairment of alveolar fluid clearance. Patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and intact alveolar fluid clearance demonstrate lower mortality than those with compromised fluid clearance. We therefore investigated the effects of treatment with nebulized A77-1726 (67.5 mg/kg) on indices of cardiopulmonary function relevant to the diagnosis of acute respiratory distress syndrome. BALB/cAnNCr mice (8-12 wk old) were inoculated intranasally with 10,000 plaque-forming units/mouse influenza A/WSN/33 (H1N1). Pulse oximetry was performed daily. Alveolar fluid clearance, lung water, and lung mechanics were measured at 2 and 6 days after inoculation in live, ventilated mice by BSA instillation, magnetic resonance imaging, and forced-oscillation techniques, respectively. A77-1726 treatment at 1 day after inoculation delayed mortality. Treatment on Days 1 or 5 reduced viral replication on Day 6, and improved alveolar fluid clearance, peripheral oxygenation, and cardiac function. Nebulized A77-1726 also reversed influenza-induced increases in lung water content and volume, improved pulmonary mechanics, reduced bronchoalveolar lavage fluid ATP and neutrophil content, and increased IL-6 concentrations. The ability of A77-1726 to improve cardiopulmonary function in influenza-infected mice and to reduce the severity of ongoing acute respiratory distress syndrome late in infection suggests that pyrimidine synthesis inhibitors are promising therapeutic candidates for the management of severe influenza.

Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in healthy adults and children

BACKGROUND

Planning for outbreaks of influenza is a high priority public health issue for national governments. Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are thought to help reduce the symptoms of influenza with several possible mechanisms proposed. NIs have been stockpiled with a view to their widespread use in the event of a pandemic. However, the evidence base for this class of agents remains a source of debate. In a previous review we have documented substantial risks of publication bias of trials of NIs for influenza (60% of patient data from phase III treatment trials of oseltamivir have never been published) and reporting bias in the published trials. Our confidence in the conclusions of previous versions of this review has been subsequently undermined. Since we have become aware of a large number of unpublished trials of NIs in the management of influenza, this review updates and merges existing reviews in this area.

OBJECTIVES

To review clinical study reports of placebo-controlled randomised trials, regulatory comments and reviews ('regulatory information') of the effects of the NIs oseltamivir and zanamivir for influenza in all age groups and appraise trial programmes, rather than single studies.Clinical study reports are very detailed, unpublished clinical trial data containing in-depth descriptions of protocol rationale, methods analysis plans, trial results and organisational documents (such as contracts). A series of clinical studies designed and conducted by one sponsor represents a trial programme of a drug indication (for example treatment of influenza).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched trial registries, cross-referencing published and unpublished sources and corresponded with manufacturers and regulators. We searched the archives of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European and Japanese regulators. The evidence in this review reflects searches to obtain relevant information up to 12 April 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included regulatory information based on assessments of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in people of any age who had either confirmed or suspected influenza, or who had been exposed to influenza in the local community or place of residence. We included information which had been made available by our deadline.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We indexed regulatory information in two purpose-built instruments and reconstructed trials using CONSORT statement-based templates. To progress to Stage 2 (full analysis) we sought manufacturer explanations of discrepancies in the data. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) offered us individual patient data and responded to our queries, but Roche did not provide us with complete clinical study reports. In Stage 2 we intended to analyse trials with validated data (i.e. assuming our validation questions aimed at clarifying omissions and discrepancies were resolved). No studies progressed to Stage 2. We carried out analyses of the effects of oseltamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms and hospitalisations using the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and tested five hypotheses generated post-protocol publication.

MAIN RESULTS

We included and analysed data from 25 studies (15 oseltamivir and 10 zanamivir studies). We could not use data from a further 42 studies due to insufficient information or unresolved discrepancies in their data. The included trials were predominantly conducted in adults during influenza seasons in both hemispheres. A small number of studies were conducted in older people residing in care homes and in people with underlying respiratory diseases. The studies had adequate randomisation and blinding procedures, but imbalances in the analysis populations available (ITT influenza-infected) left many of the studies at risk of attrition bias. All the studies were sponsored by manufacturers of NIs. Time to first alleviation of symptoms in people with influenza-like illness symptoms (i.e. ITT population) was a median of 160 hours (range 125 to 192 hours) in the placebo groups and oseltamivir shortened this by around 21 hours (95% confidence interval (CI) -29.5 to -12.9 hours, P < 0.001; five studies) but there was no evidence of effect on hospitalisations based on seven studies with a median placebo group event rate of 0.84% (range 0% to 11%): odds ratio (OR) 0.95; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.61, P = 0.86). These results are based on the comprehensive ITT population data and are unlikely to be biased. A post-protocol analysis showed that participants randomised to oseltamivir in treatment trials had a reduced odds being diagnosed with influenza (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.94, P = 0.003; eight studies), probably due to an altered antibody response. Zanamivir trials showed no evidence of this. Due to limitations in the design, conduct and reporting of the trial programme, the data available to us lacked sufficient detail to credibly assess a possible effect of oseltamivir on complications and viral transmission. We postponed analysis of zanamivir evidence because of the offer of individual patient data (IPD) from its manufacturer. The authors have been unable to obtain the full set of clinical study reports or obtain verification of data from the manufacturer of oseltamivir (Roche) despite five requests between June 2010 and February 2011. No substantial comments were made by Roche on the protocol of our Cochrane Review which has been publicly available since December 2010.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found a high risk of publication and reporting biases in the trial programme of oseltamivir. Sub-population analyses of the influenza infected population in the oseltamivir trial programme are not possible because the two arms are non-comparable due to oseltamivir's apparent interference with antibody production. The evidence supports a direct oseltamivir mechanism of action on symptoms but we are unable to draw conclusions about its effect on complications or transmission. We expect full clinical study reports containing study protocol, reporting analysis plan, statistical analysis plan and individual patient data to clarify outstanding issues. These full clinical study reports are at present unavailable to us.