neuraminidase inhibs for flu: lack of significant efficacy

BMJ just came out with 2 articles from the Cochrane group on neuraminidase inhibitors oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza) (see http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2545.pdf%2Bhtml for oseltamivir and http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2547 for zanamivir). these papers are updated systematic reviews, and for oseltamivir (per the editorialist) "is the culmination of a four and a half year battle for access to the raw data from industry funded trials of oseltamivir, a drug on which the world has spent billions of dollars", and reflects very different results than that presented to regulators, policy makers, the public etc by the drug makers. brief summaries:
oseltamivir: 83 RCTs on adults and kids. results:
    --treatment studies:
            --time to first alleviation of symptoms: decreased 16.7 hours (from 7 days to 6.3 days). no effect on kids with asthma, but healthy kids decreased symptoms by 29 hours
            --no diff in admissions to hospital for adult. sparse data on kids. 
            --no diff in pneumonia, bronchitis, otitis media, sinusitis or any serious complication
            --but increased nausea (number needed to harm NNTH 28) and vomiting (NNTH 22) with oseltamivir in adults and and vomiting in kids (NNTH 19). also inc QTc (NNTH 25)
    --prophylaxis trials, oseltamivir dec symptomatic flu in pts by 55% and households by 13.6%, but no effect on asymptomatic flu and no evidence of dec transmission. in prophylaxis trials, inc risk of psych adverse events (NNTH 94), with dose response curve. increased headaches (NNTH 32), renal events -- esp dec creat clearance (NNTH 150) and nausea (NNTH 25)
    --authors note: "in a primary or secondary prophylaxis indication the postulated central effect of oseltamivir is confined to suppressing symptoms, because infection, according to Roche (the manufaturer) is not prevented".
zanamirir: (see http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2547 ). 54 RCTs in kids and adults. 
     --treatment studies:
        --zanamivir reduced time to first alleviation of sx by 0.60 days (from 6.6 to 6.0 days, 14.4 hours) in adults. not significant in kids.
        --no diff in pneumonia (investigator-reported or by CXR) in adults. also nonsignificant effect in kids
        --no diff in otitis media or sinusitis in adults and kids, small effect in bronchitis only in adults (1.8%)
     --prophylaxis studies:
        --no diff in asymptomatic flu cases in individuals or households. only 2 small studies found effect in symptomatic flu in adults by 14.8%. 
        --no signif adverse events
so, what does this all mean?  of note the WHO has oseltamivir on their list of "essential drugs". but neither of these drugs have significant effects on preventing or treating major complications of flu. the CDC also fully embraced these drugs (without having full transparent access to data) as did the am acad of pediatrics, making claims that starting these drugs early prevent serious complications. in these studies, it is unclear if using zanamivir, for example, actually reduces symptoms more than taking symptom relief meds.  the data from these studies are pretty compelling (and quite striking, since these drugs have been around for 15 years!): the benefits of these drugs are pretty minimal, the cost is high, the incidence of adverse effects (with oseltamivir) is high, and the imperative to use them comes from the lack of transparency and withholding info by big pharma.

Comments

Post a Comment

if you would like to receive the near-daily emails regularly, please email me at gmodest@uphams.org

Popular posts from this blog

cystatin c: better predictor of bad outcomes than creatinine

  another article found significant discordance between creatinine and cystatin C in assessing renal function,  finding that the latter correlated most strongly with both renal and non-renal adverse clinical outcomes (see   ckd cystatin c better than creat AJKD2023  in  dropbox or doi: 10.1053/ j.ajkd.2023.04.002)   Details: -- 158,601 adults who were in the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements (SCREAM) project and had testing of creatinine and cystatin C on the same day during a healthcare encounter, from 2010-2018     -- >400,000 outpatient tests were done for both creatinine and cystatin C levels -- mean age 62, 48% female -- mean eGFR by creatinine (   eGFR cr ) 80; mean eGFR by cystatin C ( eGFR cys  ) 73 -- mean stage of renal insufficiency: 39%  eGFR cr   90+; 38%  eGFR cr  60-89; 12%  eGFR cr  45-59; 7.1%  eGFR cr  30-44; 3.2%  eGFR cr  15-29, 0.7%  eGFR cr ...
Read more

diabetes DPP-4 inhibitors and the risk of heart failure

the FDA just came out with a safety alert about 2 DPP-4 inhibitors and the increased risk of heart failure (released 04/05/2016)(see  http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm494252.htm?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery ​ ). details: --saxagliptin and alogliptin were singled out because of 2 clinical trials in diabetic patients with heart disease. in each trial more patients taking these meds were hospitalized for heart failure vs those on placebo     --in the saxagliptin trial: 3.5% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 2.8% on placebo). risk factors included prior heart failure or kidney disease     --in the alogliptin trial: 3.9% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 3.3% on placebo) --recommendation by the FDA:     -- we should consider stopping these drugs if the patient develops heart failure ...
Read more

UPDATE: ASCVD risk factor critique

I decided to do an extensive update of my prior ASCVD (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) risk analysis and critique of risk calculators, with much more information about the “non-traditional” risk factors. I felt that there should be more data/clarification, since I think we are really undertreating/not preventing the most common cause of death by relying on the current ASCVD risk calculators   -- Cardiovascular risk models:      -- many of us rely on the various cardiovascular risk models to determine the appropriate approach to patients, and these are often integrated into the electronic medical records      -- these risk models have several very important limitations:          -- they are typically based on community data, eg from the Framingham study etc. But, in clinical practice, we are dealing with the individual and not the community:          ...
Read more