Efficacy and safety of intravenous peramivir versus oral oseltamivir in the treatment of influenza in children: A meta-analysis

IF 1.6 Q4 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Jie Yuan , Shuhua An , Zhongfu Zhang
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of intravenous peramivir versus oral oseltamivir in the treatment of influenza in children: A meta-analysis","authors":"Jie Yuan ,&nbsp;Shuhua An ,&nbsp;Zhongfu Zhang","doi":"10.1016/j.jcvp.2024.100179","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To investigate the efficacy and safety of intravenous peramivir compared to oral oseltamivir for pediatric influenza by a method of meta-analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Clinical trials involving intravenous peramivir versus oral oseltamivir therapy in children with influenza were searched from six databases until July 2023. Data were processed using Stata 15.0 software.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Seven published articles were identified in this review. The combined results exhibited that the clinical effective rate in the peramivir group (76.09 %) was higher than that in the oseltamivir group (58.85 %) (RR= 1.12, 95 %CI: 1.01∼1.24, <em>P</em> = 0.038). The incidence of adverse reactions in the peramivir group (13.31 %) was lower than that in the oseltamivir group (17.34 %) (RR= 0.77, 95 %CI: 0.61–0.96, <em>P</em> = 0.023). Compared with the oseltamivir group, the peramivir group had lower recovery time of body temperature (WMD= -19.81, 95 %CI: -27.58∼-12.04, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Compared with oral oseltamivir, intravenous peramivir has better efficacy and higher safety for pediatric influenza.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73673,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical virology plus","volume":"4 2","pages":"Article 100179"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667038024000048/pdfft?md5=3e38732d6d7310f107900a33973c9f81&pid=1-s2.0-S2667038024000048-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical virology plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667038024000048","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To investigate the efficacy and safety of intravenous peramivir compared to oral oseltamivir for pediatric influenza by a method of meta-analysis.

Methods

Clinical trials involving intravenous peramivir versus oral oseltamivir therapy in children with influenza were searched from six databases until July 2023. Data were processed using Stata 15.0 software.

Results

Seven published articles were identified in this review. The combined results exhibited that the clinical effective rate in the peramivir group (76.09 %) was higher than that in the oseltamivir group (58.85 %) (RR= 1.12, 95 %CI: 1.01∼1.24, P = 0.038). The incidence of adverse reactions in the peramivir group (13.31 %) was lower than that in the oseltamivir group (17.34 %) (RR= 0.77, 95 %CI: 0.61–0.96, P = 0.023). Compared with the oseltamivir group, the peramivir group had lower recovery time of body temperature (WMD= -19.81, 95 %CI: -27.58∼-12.04, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Compared with oral oseltamivir, intravenous peramivir has better efficacy and higher safety for pediatric influenza.

静脉注射帕拉米韦与口服奥司他韦治疗儿童流感的疗效和安全性:荟萃分析
目的 通过荟萃分析法研究静脉注射培拉米韦与口服奥司他韦治疗小儿流感的疗效和安全性比较。结果本综述共发现七篇已发表的文章。综合结果显示,培拉米韦组的临床有效率(76.09%)高于奥司他韦组(58.85%)(RR= 1.12, 95 %CI: 1.01∼1.24, P = 0.038)。帕拉米韦组的不良反应发生率(13.31%)低于奥司他韦组(17.34%)(RR= 0.77,95 %CI:0.61-0.96,P = 0.023)。与口服奥司他韦组相比,静脉注射培拉米韦组的体温恢复时间更短(WMD= -19.81,95 %CI:-27.58∼-12.04,P < 0.001)。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of clinical virology plus
Journal of clinical virology plus Infectious Diseases
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
66 days
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信