Pharmacoeconomic study of anti-influenza virus drugs in Japan based on a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: An analysis was conducted in Japan to determine the most cost-effective neuraminidase inhibitor for the treatment of influenza virus infections from the healthcare payer's standpoint. OBJECTIVE: This study reanalysed the findings of a previous study that had some limitations (no probabilistic sensitivity analysis and quality of life scores measured by the EQ-5D-3L instead of the EQ-5D-5L) and used a decision tree model with only three health conditions. METHODS: This study incorporated new data from a network meta-analysis study into the first examination. The second examination involved constructing a new decision tree model encompassing seven health conditions and identifying costs, which consisted of medical costs and drug prices based on the 2020 version of the Japanese medical fee index. Effectiveness outcomes were measured using EQ-5D-5L questionnaires for adult patients with a history of influenza virus infections within a 14-day time horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the uncertainty. RESULTS: In the first examination, the base-case cost-effectiveness analysis confirmed that oseltamivir outperformed laninamivir, zanamivir and peramivir, making it the most cost-effective neuraminidase inhibitor. The second examination revealed that oseltamivir dominated the other agents. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed robust results that validated oseltamivir as the most cost effective among the four neuraminidase inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: This study thus reaffirms oseltamivir's position as the most cost-effective neuraminidase inhibitor for the treatment of influenza virus infections in Japan from the perspective of healthcare payment. These findings can help decision makers and healthcare providers in Japan.

Impact of Adding Oseltamivir to Usual Care on Quality-Adjusted Life-Years During Influenza-Like Illness.

OBJECTIVES: The ALIC4E trial has shown that oseltamivir reduces recovery time while increasing the risk of nausea. This secondary analysis of the ALIC4E trial aimed to determine the gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with adding oseltamivir to usual primary care in patients presenting with influenza-like illness (ILI). METHODS: Patients with ILI were recruited during the influenza season (2015-2018) in 15 European countries. Patients were assigned to usual care with or without oseltamivir through stratified randomization (age, severity, comorbidities, and symptom onset). Patients' health status was valued with the EQ-5D and visual analog scale (VAS) for up to 28 days. Average EQ-5D and VAS scores over time were estimated for both treatment groups using one-inflated beta regression in children (<13 years old) and adults (≥13 years old). QALY gain was calculated as the difference between the groups. Sensitivity analysis considered the value set to convert EQ-5D answers to summary scores and the follow-up period. RESULTS: In adults, oseltamivir gained 0.0006 (95% confidence interval 0.0002-0.0010) QALYs, whereas no statistically significant gain was found in children (14-day follow-up, EQ-5D). QALY gains were statistically significant in patients aged ≥65 years, patients without relevant comorbidities, or patients experiencing symptoms for ≤48 hours. Using VAS and accounting for 28-day follow-up resulted in higher QALY gain. CONCLUSIONS: QALY gain owing to oseltamivir is limited compared with other diseases, and its clinical meaningfulness remains to be determined. Further analysis is needed to evaluate whether QALY gain and its impact on ILI treatment cost render oseltamivir cost-effective.

[Scientific research in times of pandemics.] / La ricerca scientifica in tempi di pandemia.

When a pandemic occurs, scientific research moves fast in order to achieve readily results, such as effective therapies to fight the SARS-CoV-2 and vaccines. But this high-speed science, engaged by the emergency and characterized by the explosion of online publications in preprint form not subject to scrutiny by peer reviewers, carries some risks. And it represents a challenge to maintain research integrity and to comply with those globally recognized standard principles of fairness. Competition and the pressure to publish immediately - a way of encouraging rapid data sharing - can favor the dissemination of incomplete if not erroneous results obtained from partial studies, which feed false news, such as the benefits of a drug, and illusory hopes. It is commonly through press releases that "speed science" disseminates information to an audience that wants to be informed and reassured. Financial and political interests often mix with the urgency to find solutions. Covid-19 has highlighted in particular the risk of a politicization of science at the expense of transparency.

Antivirals for influenza-Like Illness? A randomised Controlled trial of Clinical and Cost effectiveness in primary CarE (ALIC4 E): the ALIC4 E protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Effective management of seasonal and pandemic influenza is a high priority internationally. Guidelines in many countries recommend antiviral treatment for older people and individuals with comorbidity at increased risk of complications. However, antivirals are not often prescribed in primary care in Europe, partly because its clinical and cost effectiveness has been insufficiently demonstrated by non-industry funded and pragmatic studies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Antivirals for influenza-Like Illness? An rCt of Clinical and Cost effectiveness in primary CarE is a European multinational, multicentre, open-labelled, non-industry funded, pragmatic, adaptive-platform, randomised controlled trial. Initial trial arms will be best usual primary care and best usual primary care plus treatment with oseltamivir for 5 days. We aim to recruit at least 2500 participants ≥1 year presenting with influenza-like illness (ILI), with symptom duration ≤72 hours in primary care over three consecutive periods of confirmed high influenza incidence. Participant outcomes will be followed up to 28 days by diary and telephone. The primary objective is to determine whether adding antiviral treatment to best usual primary care is effective in reducing time to return to usual daily activity with fever, headache and muscle ache reduced to minor severity or less. Secondary objectives include estimating cost-effectiveness, benefits in subgroups according to age (<12, 12-64 and >64 years), severity of symptoms at presentation (low, medium and high), comorbidity (yes/no), duration of symptoms (≤48 hours/>48-72 hours), complications (hospital admission and pneumonia), use of additional prescribed medication including antibiotics, use of over-the-counter medicines and self-management of ILI symptoms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics committee (REC) approval was granted by the NRES Committee South Central (Oxford B) and Clinical Trial Authority (CTA) approval by The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. All participating countries gained national REC and CTA approval as required. Dissemination of results will be through peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN27908921; Pre-results.

Cost-utility analysis of antiviral use under pandemic influenza using a novel approach - linking pharmacology, epidemiology and heath economics.

Simulation models are used widely in pharmacology, epidemiology and health economics (HEs). However, there have been no attempts to incorporate models from these disciplines into a single integrated model. Accordingly, we explored this linkage to evaluate the epidemiological and economic impact of oseltamivir dose optimisation in supporting pandemic influenza planning in the USA. An HE decision analytic model was linked to a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) - dynamic transmission model simulating the impact of pandemic influenza with low virulence and low transmissibility and, high virulence and high transmissibility. The cost-utility analysis was from the payer and societal perspectives, comparing oseltamivir 75 and 150 mg twice daily (BID) to no treatment over a 1-year time horizon. Model parameters were derived from published studies. Outcomes were measured as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the integrated model's robustness. Under both pandemic scenarios, compared to no treatment, the use of oseltamivir 75 or 150 mg BID led to a significant reduction of influenza episodes and influenza-related deaths, translating to substantial savings of QALYs. Overall drug costs were offset by the reduction of both direct and indirect costs, making these two interventions cost-saving from both perspectives. The results were sensitive to the proportion of inpatient presentation at the emergency visit and patients' quality of life. Integrating PK/PD-EPI/HE models is achievable. Whilst further refinement of this novel linkage model to more closely mimic the reality is needed, the current study has generated useful insights to support influenza pandemic planning.

Effect of target-enriched multiplex polymerase chain reaction on patient outcomes and costs during the 2013-14 influenza season.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends the initial use of rapid antigen influenza diagnostic test (RIDT) for the detection of influenza A (H1N1-09). Nasopharyngeal samples were tested from 246 patients for H1N1-09 using target-enriched multiplex polymerase chain reaction (TEM-PCR), of which 163 were additionally tested via RIDT. RIDTs had a sensitivity of 18.7% compared with TEM-PCR as the reference standard. Patients with false-negative RIDTs were withheld from 111 days of oseltamivir and 65 days of isolation. Patients negative for H1N1 via TEM-PCR had antiviral therapy immediately stopped, thereby evading 408 days of oseltamivir and 315 days of unnecessary isolation. This cost avoidance saved US$208,982.

Interdisciplinary pharmacometrics linking oseltamivir pharmacology, influenza epidemiology and health economics to inform antiviral use in pandemics.

AIMS: A modular interdisciplinary platform was developed to investigate the economic impact of oseltamivir treatment by dosage regimen under simulated influenza pandemic scenarios. METHODS: The pharmacology module consisted of a pharmacokinetic distribution of oseltamivir carboxylate daily area under the concentration-time curve at steady state (simulated for 75 mg and 150 mg twice daily regimens for 5 days) and a pharmacodynamic distribution of viral shedding duration obtained from phase II influenza inoculation data. The epidemiological module comprised a susceptible, exposed, infected, recovered (SEIR) model to which drug effect on the basic reproductive number (R0 ), a measure of transmissibility, was linked by reduction of viral shedding duration. The number of infected patients per population of 100 000 susceptible individuals was simulated for a series of pandemic scenarios, varying oseltamivir dose, R0 (1.9 vs. 2.7), and drug uptake (25%, 50%, and 80%). The number of infected patients for each scenario was entered into the health economics module, a decision analytic model populated with branch probabilities, disease utility, costs of hospitalized patients developing complications, and case-fatality rates. Change in quality-adjusted life years was determined relative to base case. RESULTS: Oseltamivir 75 mg relative to no treatment reduced the median number of infected patients, increased change in quality-adjusted life years by deaths averted, and was cost-saving under all scenarios; 150 mg relative to 75 mg was not cost effective in low transmissibility scenarios but was cost saving in high transmissibility scenarios. CONCLUSION: This methodological study demonstrates proof of concept that the disciplines of pharmacology, disease epidemiology and health economics can be linked in a single quantitative framework.

Patient Perceptions of Oseltamivir for the Treatment of Influenza.

OBJECTIVES: Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration and is advertised for the treatment of influenza types A and B. Patient perceptions of its efficacy have not been adequately studied. Recent systematic reviews have called the benefits of this drug into question relative to the cost and adverse effect profile. We hypothesized that most people would be unaware of the efficacy, cost, or adverse effect profile of the drug. Our objective was to determine patient perceptions of efficacy, cost, and adverse effect profile of oseltamivir for the treatment of influenza. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, multiple-choice, open-response survey of adult patients and adult caregivers of pediatric patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) with flu-like symptoms. Flu-like symptoms were defined as any respiratory symptom plus fever or body aches. The study took place during the 2014-2015 flu season at a rural ED. We analyzed the data, with descriptive statistics reported as frequencies/percentages for categorical data. Survey data collected as Likert scale data were summarized using mean, median, and mode. RESULTS: During the 4-month period, 70 surveys were completed. A total of 67% of the participants were women, with 84% younger than 40 years. Subjects younger than 40 years were more likely to have seen advertising for oseltamivir (31% vs 0%, P = 0.04). Less than half reported having received the flu vaccine that year. Most reported that oseltamivir was an effective treatment for the flu. Most overstated the perceived efficacy of oseltamivir. Most were not willing to take the medication if it had adverse effects, with the most deterring adverse effects being potential kidney and liver injury. CONCLUSIONS: In our study most patients reported overly positive expectations for the efficacy of oseltamivir for treating influenza. Most reported that commonly listed adverse effects would deter their use of the medication.

Oseltamivir Treatment for Children with Influenza-Like Illness in China: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Influenza is a common viral respiratory infection that causes epidemics and pandemics in the human population. Oseltamivir is a neuraminidase inhibitor-a new class of antiviral therapy for influenza. Although its efficacy and safety have been established, there is uncertainty regarding whether influenza-like illness (ILI) in children is best managed by oseltamivir at the onset of illness, and its cost-effectiveness in children has not been studied in China. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of post rapid influenza diagnostic test (RIDT) treatment with oseltamivir and empiric treatment with oseltamivir comparing with no antiviral therapy against influenza for children with ILI. METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic model based on previously published evidence to simulate and evaluate 1-year potential clinical and economic outcomes associated with three managing strategies for children presenting with symptoms of influenza. Model inputs were derived from literature and expert opinion of clinical practice and research in China. Outcome measures included costs and quality-adjusted life year (QALY). All the interventions were compared with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). RESULTS: In base case analysis, empiric treatment with oseltamivir consistently produced the greatest gains in QALY. When compared with no antiviral therapy, the empiric treatment with oseltamivir strategy is very cost effective with an ICER of RMB 4,438. When compared with the post RIDT treatment with oseltamivir, the empiric treatment with oseltamivir strategy is dominant. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis projected that there is a 100% probability that empiric oseltamivir treatment would be considered as a very cost-effective strategy compared to the no antiviral therapy, according to the WHO recommendations for cost-effectiveness thresholds. The same was concluded with 99% probability for empiric oseltamivir treatment being a very cost-effective strategy compared to the post RIDT treatment with oseltamivir. CONCLUSION: In the Chinese setting of current health system, our modelling based simulation analysis suggests that empiric treatment with oseltamivir to be a cost-saving and very cost-effective strategy in managing children with ILI.

Oseltamivir in influenza outbreaks in care homes: challenges and benefits of use in the real world.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory virus infections, including influenza, are an important cause of potentially avoidable hospital admissions in the elderly. Although recent reviews have questioned the efficacy of oseltamivir in the prevention of transmission, it has been a central part of the authors' strategy to manage outbreaks in residential homes. AIM: To evaluate the management of respiratory virus infection outbreaks in residential homes, with particular emphasis on the logistics and effectiveness of antiviral prophylaxis with oseltamivir. METHODS: A descriptive analysis was undertaken from a retrospective survey of records held on a local database for three northern hemisphere influenza seasons from 2010 to 2013. RESULTS: In total, 75 respiratory outbreaks were reported from 590 care homes during the study period; of these, the aetiological agent was confirmed as influenza in 35 outbreaks. Overall attack, hospital admission and death rates for influenza were 29.7%, 5.3% and 3.3%, respectively. A further 10 outbreaks were caused by parainfluenza, human metapneumovirus or respiratory syncytial virus in combination with each other or rhinovirus, and six outbreaks were caused by rhinovirus alone. No agent was identified for the remaining 24 outbreaks. CONCLUSIONS: Early public health involvement can lead to rapid termination of outbreaks of respiratory virus infections in residential homes. Although the use of oseltamivir is expensive, the data suggest that it does have some benefits as prophylaxis in this setting. Trials are needed to determine the most clinically and cost-effective interventions to control outbreaks in residential homes and avoid hospital admissions.

[Conflicts of interest in public institutions. It will be the network to exercise control?]. / Conflitti di interesse nelle pubbliche istituzioni. Sarà la rete a esercitare il controllo?

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) launched a health awareness campaign soliciting the use of antiviral drug for influenza. The claim is not supported by any statement of the Food and Drug Administration, since the Agency concluded that oseltamivir «has not been proven to have a positive impact on the potential consequences (such as hospitalizations, mortality, or economic impact) of seasonal, avian, or pandemic influenza¼. A feature article published in The BMJ has pointed out the fact that some pharmaceutical companies involved in production and marketing of antiviral drugs have provided funding to the CDC Foundation to support qualitative research into influenza prevention and treatment messaging. This incident highlights the need to better manage the possible conflicts of interest that may arise in the work of governmental agencies, threatening their reputation.The role of the internet can be valuable to raise awareness of these issues, even considering the interest that social media have fuelled on the debate on the effectiveness and safety of antiviral drugs.

The Tamiflu fiasco and lessons learnt.

Oseltamivir (Tamiflu), a neuraminidase inhibitor, was approved for seasonal flu by US Food and Drug Administration in 1999. A number of randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis emphasized a favorable efficacy and safety profile. Majority of them were funded by Roche, which also first marketed and promoted this drug. In 2005 and 2009, the looming fear of pandemic flu led to recommendation by prominent regulatory bodies such as World Health Organization (WHO), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, European Medicines Agency and others for its use in treatment and prophylaxis of influenza, and it's stockpiling as a measure to tide over the crisis. Serious Adverse Events, especially neuropsychiatric events associated with Tamiflu started getting reported leading to a cascade of questions on clinical utility of this drug. A recent Cochrane review and related articles have questioned the risk-benefit ratio of the drug, besides raising doubts about the regulatory decision of approving it. The recommendations for stockpiling the said drug as given by various international organizations viz WHO have also been put to scrutiny. Although many reviewers have labeled the Tamiflu saga as a "costly mistake," the episode leaves us with some important lessons. This article takes a comprehensive relook on the subject, and we proceed to suggest some ways and means to avoid a similar situation in the future.

Evidence-based health care policy in reimbursement decisions: lessons from a series of six equivocal case-studies.

CONTEXT: Health care technological evolution through new drugs, implants and other interventions is a key driver of healthcare spending. Policy makers are currently challenged to strengthen the evidence for and cost-effectiveness of reimbursement decisions, while not reducing the capacity for real innovations. This article examines six cases of reimbursement decision making at the national health insurance authority in Belgium, with outcomes that were contested from an evidence-based perspective in scientific or public media. METHODS: In depth interviews with key stakeholders based on the adapted framework of Davies allowed us to identify the relative impact of clinical and health economic evidence; experience, expertise & judgment; financial impact & resources; values, ideology & political beliefs; habit & tradition; lobbyists & pressure groups; pragmatics & contingencies; media attention; and adoption from other payers & countries. FINDINGS: Evidence was not the sole criterion on which reimbursement decisions were based. Across six equivocal cases numerous other criteria were perceived to influence reimbursement policy. These included other considerations that stakeholders deemed crucial in this area, such as taking into account the cost to the patient, and managing crisis scenarios. However, negative impacts were also reported, in the form of bypassing regular procedures unnecessarily, dominance of an opinion leader, using information selectively, and influential conflicts of interest. CONCLUSIONS: 'Evidence' and 'negotiation' are both essential inputs of reimbursement policy. Yet, purposely selected equivocal cases in Belgium provide a rich source to learn from and to improve the interaction between both. We formulated policy recommendations to reconcile the impact of all factors identified. A more systematic approach to reimburse new care may be one of many instruments to resolve the budgetary crisis in health care in other countries as well, by separating what is truly innovative and value for money from additional 'waste'.