评估长期护理居民的流感抗病毒预防措施:系统回顾和荟萃分析

IF 8.2 1区 医学 Q1 IMMUNOLOGY
Ryan Hanula, Jessica Glugosh, Elise Van Leer, Émilie Bortolussi-Courval, Connor Prosty
{"title":"评估长期护理居民的流感抗病毒预防措施:系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Ryan Hanula, Jessica Glugosh, Elise Van Leer, Émilie Bortolussi-Courval, Connor Prosty","doi":"10.1093/cid/ciaf101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Influenza is a pervasive respiratory infection which disproportionately burdens long-term care residents. To limit outbreaks, guidelines recommend antiviral prophylaxis, particularly oseltamivir or zanamivir, despite acknowledging the inadequate supporting evidence. Therefore, we aimed to review the literature on the efficacy of oseltamivir, zanamivir, and baloxavir prophylaxis for influenza in long-term care. Methods Medline, Embase, PubMed, and several other databases were searched from inception to August 16, 2023. For inclusion, observational studies or randomized controlled trials (RCTs) had to report influenza-like illness (ILI) or infection rates amongst adult long-term care populations receiving prophylaxis. Outcome values were meta-analyzed as intervention-specific pooled proportions (PPs) and risk ratios (RRs) when applicable. Risk of bias was assessed via the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0 and Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Results In total, 14 studies were included, comprising 12,672 residents. Individuals given oseltamivir or zanamivir experienced the fewest symptomatic, test-confirmed infections (oseltamivir PP: 0.7%, 95%CI: 0.1-4.7%, zanamivir PP: 3.0%, 95%CI: 0.9-9.4%) and ILIs (oseltamivir PP: 2.8%, 95%CI: 1.8-4.3%, zanamivir PP: 3.4%, 95%CI: 1.3-7.2%). However, no significant statistical differences were detected versus most other interventions (ILI PP range: 4.5-6.4%, infection PP range: 4.6-7.9%). Similarly, in studies directly comparing either antiviral to placebo, there were no associated benefits despite every RR being below 1 (0.51-0.75) due to expansive 95%CIs. Conclusions Oseltamivir or zanamivir could provide some benefit but low statistical power behind most estimates precluded definitive conclusions. Therefore, additional studies (RCTs) are needed to expand the evidence base and validate whether prophylaxis is beneficial in this setting.","PeriodicalId":10463,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Infectious Diseases","volume":"53 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of influenza antiviral prophylaxis for long-term care residents: a systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Ryan Hanula, Jessica Glugosh, Elise Van Leer, Émilie Bortolussi-Courval, Connor Prosty\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/cid/ciaf101\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Influenza is a pervasive respiratory infection which disproportionately burdens long-term care residents. To limit outbreaks, guidelines recommend antiviral prophylaxis, particularly oseltamivir or zanamivir, despite acknowledging the inadequate supporting evidence. Therefore, we aimed to review the literature on the efficacy of oseltamivir, zanamivir, and baloxavir prophylaxis for influenza in long-term care. Methods Medline, Embase, PubMed, and several other databases were searched from inception to August 16, 2023. For inclusion, observational studies or randomized controlled trials (RCTs) had to report influenza-like illness (ILI) or infection rates amongst adult long-term care populations receiving prophylaxis. Outcome values were meta-analyzed as intervention-specific pooled proportions (PPs) and risk ratios (RRs) when applicable. Risk of bias was assessed via the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0 and Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Results In total, 14 studies were included, comprising 12,672 residents. Individuals given oseltamivir or zanamivir experienced the fewest symptomatic, test-confirmed infections (oseltamivir PP: 0.7%, 95%CI: 0.1-4.7%, zanamivir PP: 3.0%, 95%CI: 0.9-9.4%) and ILIs (oseltamivir PP: 2.8%, 95%CI: 1.8-4.3%, zanamivir PP: 3.4%, 95%CI: 1.3-7.2%). However, no significant statistical differences were detected versus most other interventions (ILI PP range: 4.5-6.4%, infection PP range: 4.6-7.9%). Similarly, in studies directly comparing either antiviral to placebo, there were no associated benefits despite every RR being below 1 (0.51-0.75) due to expansive 95%CIs. Conclusions Oseltamivir or zanamivir could provide some benefit but low statistical power behind most estimates precluded definitive conclusions. Therefore, additional studies (RCTs) are needed to expand the evidence base and validate whether prophylaxis is beneficial in this setting.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10463,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Infectious Diseases\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Infectious Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaf101\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"IMMUNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaf101","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of influenza antiviral prophylaxis for long-term care residents: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Background Influenza is a pervasive respiratory infection which disproportionately burdens long-term care residents. To limit outbreaks, guidelines recommend antiviral prophylaxis, particularly oseltamivir or zanamivir, despite acknowledging the inadequate supporting evidence. Therefore, we aimed to review the literature on the efficacy of oseltamivir, zanamivir, and baloxavir prophylaxis for influenza in long-term care. Methods Medline, Embase, PubMed, and several other databases were searched from inception to August 16, 2023. For inclusion, observational studies or randomized controlled trials (RCTs) had to report influenza-like illness (ILI) or infection rates amongst adult long-term care populations receiving prophylaxis. Outcome values were meta-analyzed as intervention-specific pooled proportions (PPs) and risk ratios (RRs) when applicable. Risk of bias was assessed via the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0 and Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Results In total, 14 studies were included, comprising 12,672 residents. Individuals given oseltamivir or zanamivir experienced the fewest symptomatic, test-confirmed infections (oseltamivir PP: 0.7%, 95%CI: 0.1-4.7%, zanamivir PP: 3.0%, 95%CI: 0.9-9.4%) and ILIs (oseltamivir PP: 2.8%, 95%CI: 1.8-4.3%, zanamivir PP: 3.4%, 95%CI: 1.3-7.2%). However, no significant statistical differences were detected versus most other interventions (ILI PP range: 4.5-6.4%, infection PP range: 4.6-7.9%). Similarly, in studies directly comparing either antiviral to placebo, there were no associated benefits despite every RR being below 1 (0.51-0.75) due to expansive 95%CIs. Conclusions Oseltamivir or zanamivir could provide some benefit but low statistical power behind most estimates precluded definitive conclusions. Therefore, additional studies (RCTs) are needed to expand the evidence base and validate whether prophylaxis is beneficial in this setting.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Clinical Infectious Diseases 医学-传染病学
CiteScore
25.00
自引率
2.50%
发文量
900
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Infectious Diseases (CID) is dedicated to publishing original research, reviews, guidelines, and perspectives with the potential to reshape clinical practice, providing clinicians with valuable insights for patient care. CID comprehensively addresses the clinical presentation, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of a wide spectrum of infectious diseases. The journal places a high priority on the assessment of current and innovative treatments, microbiology, immunology, and policies, ensuring relevance to patient care in its commitment to advancing the field of infectious diseases.
×
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