Clinical Effectiveness of Intravenous Peramivir Compared With Oseltamivir in Patients With Severe Influenza A With Primary Viral Pneumonia: A Randomized Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: High-quality evidence confirms that the clinical efficacy of peramivir in severe influenza patients with primary viral pneumonia is lacking. To optimize clinical medication, we evaluate the different efficacy between peramivir and oseltamivir in the treatment of severe influenza A with primary viral pneumonia. METHODS: A single-center, randomized, controlled trial was conducted during the Chinese influenza season from December 2018 to April 2019 in patients with severe influenza A with primary viral pneumonia. A total of 40 inpatients were enrolled and treated with either intravenous peramivir (300 mg, once daily for 5 days) or oral oseltamivir (75 mg, twice daily for 5 days). RESULTS: The duration of influenza virus nucleic acid positivity in the oseltamivir group and the peramivir group was 2.95 days and 2.80 days, respectively. The remission times of clinical symptoms in the oseltamivir group and the peramivir group were 3.90 days and 3.25 days, respectively. In addition, the remission time of cough symptoms in the peramivir group (63.89 hours) was shorter than that in the oseltamivir group (75.53 hours). There was no significant difference between these values (P > .05). The remission time of fever symptoms in the oseltamivir group was 23.67 hours, which was significantly longer than that in the peramivir group (12.32 hours) (P = .034). CONCLUSIONS: Peramivir is no less effective than oseltamivir in the treatment of severe influenza A with primary viral pneumonia, and patients treated with peramivir had significantly shorter remission times of fever symptoms than those treated with oseltamivir.

A Retrospective Analysis of Three Antiviral Regimens of Peramivir in the Treatment of Severe Influenza A with Primary Viral Pneumonia.

Objective: To evaluate the difference of clinical efficacy of peramivir alone and peramivir combined with immunomodulators (either ribonucleic acid or thymopetidum) in the treatment of severe influenza A with primary viral pneumonia. Methods: A retrospective analysis was applied to 45 patients who were diagnosed with severe influenza A with primary viral pneumonia in our hospital from December 2017 to March 2018. The cases were divided into three groups: the peramivir group, the peramivir combined with ribonucleic acid group, and the peramivir combined with thymopetidum group. Results: The duration of viral nucleic acid positivity in the peramivir group, the peramivir combined with ribonucleic acid group, and the peramivir combined with thymopetidum group was 6.13 ± 2.06, 6.53 ± 2.72, and 6.10 ± 1.37 days, respectively. The remission time of the clinical symptoms of the peramivir group, the peramivir combined with ribonucleic acid group, and the peramivir combined with thymopetidum group was 8.06 ± 2.73, 7.94 ± 2.89, and 7.67 ± 1.58 days, respectively. Comparisons between the peramivir group and the peramivir combined with ribonucleic acid group or the peramivir combined with thymopetidum group revealed no significant differences in the duration of virus nucleic acid positivity, remission time of clinical symptoms, time to fever alleviation, and time to cough alleviation. Conclusions: There is no observed benefit in the addition of ribonucleic acid or thymopetidum when peramivir sodium chloride injection is used in the treatment of severe influenza A with primary viral pneumonia. This trial is registered with ChiCTR1800019417.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of apatinib treatment for chemotherapy-refractory advanced gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Apatinib, a third-line or later treatment for advanced gastric cancer (aGC), was shown to improve overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo in the phase III trial. Given the modest benefit with high costs, we further evaluated the cost-effectiveness of apatinib for patients with chemotherapy-refractory aGC. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate the disease process of aGC (PFS, progressive disease, and death) and estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of apatinib to placebo. The health outcomes and utility scores were derived from the phase III trial and previously published sources, respectively. Total costs were calculated from the perspective of the Chinese health-care payer. Sensitivity analysis was used to explore model uncertainties. RESULTS: Treatment with apatinib was estimated to provide an incremental 0.09 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $8113.86 compared with placebo, which resulted in an ICER of $90,154.00 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis showed that across the wide variation of parameters, the ICER exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of $23,700.00 per QALY which was three times the Gross Domestic Product per Capita in China. CONCLUSIONS: Apatinib is not a cost-effective option for patients with aGC who experienced failure of at least two lines chemotherapy in China. However, for its positive clinical value and subliminal demand, apatinib can provide a new therapeutic option.