Amantadine, oseltamivir and zanamivir for the prophylaxis of influenza (including a review of existing guidance no. 67): a systematic review and economic evaluation

Authors: Tappenden P, Jackson R, Cooper K, Rees A, Simpson E, Read R, Nicholson K

Journal: Health Technology Assessment Volume: 13 Issue: 11

Publication date: February 2009

DOI: 10.3310/hta13110

Citation:

Tappenden P, Jackson R, Cooper K, Rees A, Simpson E, Read R, et al.Amantadine, oseltamivir and zanamivir for the prophylaxis of influenza (including a review of existing guidance no. 67): a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2009;13(11)


Download: Citation (for this publication as a .ris file) (3.9 KB)


Journal issues* can be purchased by completing the form.


The cost of reports varies according to number of pages and postage address. The minimum cost for a copy sent to a UK address is £30.00. We will contact you on receipt of your completed form to advise you of actual cost. If you have any queries, please contact nihredit@southampton.ac.uk.


*We regret that unfortunately we are unable to supply bound print copies of Health Technology Assessment published before issue 12:31. However, PDFs are available to print from the "Downloads" tab of the issue page.

Responses

No responses have been published. If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below.

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 2 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

Post your response

Surname

Forename

Middle Initial

Occupation / Job title

Affiliation / Employer

Email

Address

Other authors

For example, if you are responding as a team or group. Please ensure you include full names and separate these using commas

Statement of competing interests

We believe that readers should be aware of any competing interests (conflicts of interest).

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) define competing interests as including: financial relationships with industry (for example through employment, consultancies, stock, ownership, honoraria, and expert testimony), either directly or through immediate family; personal relationships; academic competition; and intellectual passion.

If yes, provide details below:

Enter response title

Enter response message

Enter CAPTCHA

Security key

Regenerate security key

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Downloads section on this page.

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness of amantadine, oseltamivir and zanamivir for seasonal and post-exposure prophylaxis of influenza.

Data sources

A MEDLINE search strategy was used and searches were carried out in July 2007.

Review methods

An independent health economic model was developed based on a review of existing cost-effectiveness models and clinical advice.The model draws together a broad spectrum of evidence relating to the costs and consequences associated with influenza and its prevention. Where direct evidence concerning the effectiveness of prophylaxis within specific model subgroups was lacking, the model uses estimates from mixed subgroups or extrapolates from other mutually exclusive subgroups.

Results

Twenty-six published references relating to 22 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the clinical effectiveness review, along with one unpublished report. Eight, six and nine RCTs were included for amantadine, oseltamivir and zanamivir respectively. The study quality was variable and gaps in the evidence base limited the assessment of the clinical effectiveness of the interventions. For seasonal prophylaxis, there was limited evidence for the efficacy of amantadine in preventing symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed influenza (SLCI) in healthy adults [relative risk (RR) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08-2.03]. Oseltamivir was effective in preventing SLCI, particularly when used in at-risk elderly subjects (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01-0.63). The preventative efficacy of zanamivir was most notable in at-risk adults and adolescents (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.07-0.44), and healthy and at-risk elderly subjects (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02-1.72). For post-exposure prophylaxis, data on the use of amantadine were again limited: in adolescents an RR of 0.10 (95% CI 0.03-0.34) was reported for the prevention of SLCI. Oseltamivir was effective in households of mixed composition (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.08-0.45). The efficacy of zanamivir in post-exposure prophylaxis within households was also reported (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.13-0.33). Interventions appeared to be well tolerated. Limited evidence was available for the effectiveness of the interventions in preventing complications and hospitalisation and in minimising length of illness and time to return to normal activities. No clinical effectiveness data were identified for health-related quality of life or mortality outcomes. With the exception of at-risk children, the incremental cost-utility of seasonal influenza prophylaxis is expected to be in the range 38,000-428,000 pounds per QALY gained (depending on subgroup). The cost-effectiveness ratios for oseltamivir and zanamivir as post-exposure prophylaxis are expected to be below 30,000 pounds per QALY gained in healthy children, at-risk children, healthy elderly and at-risk elderly individuals. Despite favourable clinical efficacy estimates, the incorporation of recent evidence of viral resistance to amantadine led to it being dominated in every economic comparison.

Conclusions

All three interventions showed some efficacy for seasonal and post-exposure prophylaxis. However, weaknesses and gaps in the clinical evidence base are directly relevant to the interpretation of the health economic model and rendered the use of advanced statistical analyses inappropriate. These data limitations should be borne in mind in interpreting the findings of the review.

Publication updates

If you would like to receive information on publications and the latest news, click below to sign up.