奥司他韦治疗与需要住院治疗的季节性流感的支持性护理。

IF 10.5 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Anthony D Bai, Siddhartha Srivastava, Thuwiba Al Baluki, Fahad Razak, Amol A Verma
{"title":"奥司他韦治疗与需要住院治疗的季节性流感的支持性护理。","authors":"Anthony D Bai, Siddhartha Srivastava, Thuwiba Al Baluki, Fahad Razak, Amol A Verma","doi":"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.14508","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Current guidelines recommend oseltamivir treatment for all patients hospitalized with influenza, but this guidance is based on suboptimal evidence.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate outcomes associated with oseltamivir treatment when compared with supportive care for severe seasonal influenza requiring hospitalization.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This retrospective cohort study using target trial emulation included adult patients admitted to hospital with influenza from 30 hospitals in Ontario, Canada, from January 2015 to June 2023. Data were analyzed from November 2024 to March 2025.</p><p><strong>Exposure: </strong>Oseltamivir treatment on hospital day 0 or 1 vs supportive care without oseltamivir.</p><p><strong>Main outcome and measures: </strong>The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included time to being discharged alive and readmission within 30 days. Overlap weighting of propensity scores was used to balance covariates, and a competing risk model was used to compare time to being discharged alive.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 11 073 patients (mean [SD] age, 72.6 [16.8] years; 5793 female [52.3%]), there were 7632 patients (68.9%) and 3441 patients (31.1%) in the oseltamivir and supportive care groups, respectively. In hospital, 268 patients (3.5%) and 168 patients (4.9%) in the oseltamivir and supportive care groups died, respectively, with an adjusted risk difference of -1.8% (95% CI, -2.8% to -0.9%; P < .001). The oseltamivir treatment group was more likely to be discharged alive (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.25; P < .001). After discharge, 645 patients (8.5%) and 336 patients (9.8%) were readmitted in the oseltamivir and supportive care groups, respectively, with an adjusted risk difference of -1.5% (95% CI, -2.8% to -0.2%; P = .02).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this cohort study of patients hospitalized with influenza, oseltamivir treatment was associated with a lower in-hospital mortality risk, earlier discharge, and lower readmission rate, supporting evidence for the current guideline recommendation of oseltamivir treatment for severe influenza. Clinical trials are needed to definitively answer this question.</p>","PeriodicalId":14694,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Network Open","volume":"8 6","pages":"e2514508"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12152703/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Oseltamivir Treatment vs Supportive Care for Seasonal Influenza Requiring Hospitalization.\",\"authors\":\"Anthony D Bai, Siddhartha Srivastava, Thuwiba Al Baluki, Fahad Razak, Amol A Verma\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.14508\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Current guidelines recommend oseltamivir treatment for all patients hospitalized with influenza, but this guidance is based on suboptimal evidence.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate outcomes associated with oseltamivir treatment when compared with supportive care for severe seasonal influenza requiring hospitalization.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This retrospective cohort study using target trial emulation included adult patients admitted to hospital with influenza from 30 hospitals in Ontario, Canada, from January 2015 to June 2023. Data were analyzed from November 2024 to March 2025.</p><p><strong>Exposure: </strong>Oseltamivir treatment on hospital day 0 or 1 vs supportive care without oseltamivir.</p><p><strong>Main outcome and measures: </strong>The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included time to being discharged alive and readmission within 30 days. Overlap weighting of propensity scores was used to balance covariates, and a competing risk model was used to compare time to being discharged alive.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 11 073 patients (mean [SD] age, 72.6 [16.8] years; 5793 female [52.3%]), there were 7632 patients (68.9%) and 3441 patients (31.1%) in the oseltamivir and supportive care groups, respectively. In hospital, 268 patients (3.5%) and 168 patients (4.9%) in the oseltamivir and supportive care groups died, respectively, with an adjusted risk difference of -1.8% (95% CI, -2.8% to -0.9%; P < .001). The oseltamivir treatment group was more likely to be discharged alive (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.25; P < .001). After discharge, 645 patients (8.5%) and 336 patients (9.8%) were readmitted in the oseltamivir and supportive care groups, respectively, with an adjusted risk difference of -1.5% (95% CI, -2.8% to -0.2%; P = .02).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this cohort study of patients hospitalized with influenza, oseltamivir treatment was associated with a lower in-hospital mortality risk, earlier discharge, and lower readmission rate, supporting evidence for the current guideline recommendation of oseltamivir treatment for severe influenza. Clinical trials are needed to definitively answer this question.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14694,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAMA Network Open\",\"volume\":\"8 6\",\"pages\":\"e2514508\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12152703/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAMA Network Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.14508\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Network Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.14508","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重要性:目前的指南推荐所有流感住院患者使用奥司他韦治疗,但该指南是基于次优证据。目的:比较需要住院治疗的严重季节性流感患者接受奥司他韦治疗与支持治疗的相关结果。设计、环境和参与者:这项采用目标试验模拟的回顾性队列研究纳入了2015年1月至2023年6月期间加拿大安大略省30家医院因流感入院的成年患者。数据分析时间为2024年11月至2025年3月。暴露:住院第0或第1天奥司他韦治疗与不含奥司他韦的支持治疗。主要结局和测量:主要结局为住院死亡率。次要结局包括存活出院时间和30天内再入院时间。倾向得分的重叠加权用于平衡协变量,竞争风险模型用于比较存活出院时间。结果:11 073例患者(平均[SD]年龄72.6[16.8]岁;女性5793例(52.3%),奥司他韦组7632例(68.9%),支持治疗组3441例(31.1%)。在医院,奥司他韦组和支持治疗组分别有268例(3.5%)和168例(4.9%)患者死亡,调整后的风险差异为-1.8% (95% CI, -2.8%至-0.9%;结论和相关性:在这项针对流感住院患者的队列研究中,奥司他韦治疗与较低的住院死亡率风险、较早出院和较低的再入院率相关,这支持了目前指南推荐的奥司他韦治疗严重流感的证据。需要临床试验来明确回答这个问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Oseltamivir Treatment vs Supportive Care for Seasonal Influenza Requiring Hospitalization.

Importance: Current guidelines recommend oseltamivir treatment for all patients hospitalized with influenza, but this guidance is based on suboptimal evidence.

Objective: To evaluate outcomes associated with oseltamivir treatment when compared with supportive care for severe seasonal influenza requiring hospitalization.

Design, setting, and participants: This retrospective cohort study using target trial emulation included adult patients admitted to hospital with influenza from 30 hospitals in Ontario, Canada, from January 2015 to June 2023. Data were analyzed from November 2024 to March 2025.

Exposure: Oseltamivir treatment on hospital day 0 or 1 vs supportive care without oseltamivir.

Main outcome and measures: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included time to being discharged alive and readmission within 30 days. Overlap weighting of propensity scores was used to balance covariates, and a competing risk model was used to compare time to being discharged alive.

Results: Of 11 073 patients (mean [SD] age, 72.6 [16.8] years; 5793 female [52.3%]), there were 7632 patients (68.9%) and 3441 patients (31.1%) in the oseltamivir and supportive care groups, respectively. In hospital, 268 patients (3.5%) and 168 patients (4.9%) in the oseltamivir and supportive care groups died, respectively, with an adjusted risk difference of -1.8% (95% CI, -2.8% to -0.9%; P < .001). The oseltamivir treatment group was more likely to be discharged alive (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.25; P < .001). After discharge, 645 patients (8.5%) and 336 patients (9.8%) were readmitted in the oseltamivir and supportive care groups, respectively, with an adjusted risk difference of -1.5% (95% CI, -2.8% to -0.2%; P = .02).

Conclusions and relevance: In this cohort study of patients hospitalized with influenza, oseltamivir treatment was associated with a lower in-hospital mortality risk, earlier discharge, and lower readmission rate, supporting evidence for the current guideline recommendation of oseltamivir treatment for severe influenza. Clinical trials are needed to definitively answer this question.

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
JAMA Network Open
JAMA Network Open Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
16.00
自引率
2.90%
发文量
2126
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: JAMA Network Open, a member of the esteemed JAMA Network, stands as an international, peer-reviewed, open-access general medical journal.The publication is dedicated to disseminating research across various health disciplines and countries, encompassing clinical care, innovation in health care, health policy, and global health. JAMA Network Open caters to clinicians, investigators, and policymakers, providing a platform for valuable insights and advancements in the medical field. As part of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications, JAMA Network Open contributes to the collective knowledge and understanding within the medical community.
×
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