\u00a9 2018 The Author(s). Background: Clinical study reports (CSRs) are produced for marketing authorisation applications. They often contain considerably more information about, and data from, clinical trials than corresponding journal publications. Use of data from CSRs might help circumvent reporting bias, but many researchers appear to be unaware of their existence or potential value. Our survey aimed to gain insight into the level of familiarity, understanding and use of CSRs, and to raise awareness of their potential within the systematic review community. We also aimed to explore the potential barriers faced when obtaining and using CSRs in systematic reviews. Methods: Online survey of systematic reviewers who (i) had requested or used CSRs, (ii) had considered but not used CSRs and (iii) had not considered using CSRs was conducted. Cochrane reviewers were contacted twice via the Cochrane monthly digest. Non-Cochrane reviewers were reached via journal and other website postings. Results: One hundred sixty respondents answered an open invitation and completed the questionnaire; 20/160 (13%) had previously requested or used CSRs and other regulatory documents, 7/160 (4%) had considered but not used CSRs and 133/160 (83%) had never considered this data source. Survey respondents mainly sought data from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and/or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Motivation for using CSRs stemmed mainly from concerns about reporting bias 11/20 (55%), specifically outcome reporting bias 11/20 (55%) and publication bias 5/20 (25%). The barriers to using CSRs noted by all types of respondents included current limited access to these documents (43 respondents), the time and resources needed to obtain and include these data in evidence syntheses (n=25) and lack of guidance about how to use these sources in systematic reviews (n=26). Conclusions: Most respondents (irrespective of whether they had previously used them) agreed that access to CSRs is important, and suggest that further guidance on how to use and include these data would help to promote their use in future systematic reviews. Most respondents who received CSRs considered them to be valuable in their systematic review and/or meta-analysis.
\n \n\n \n \n\u00a9 2017 Article author(s). All rights reserved. Introduction: Transvaginal mesh devices are approved in the USA by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), through the 510(k) system. However, there is uncertainty about the benefit to harm balance of mesh approved for pelvic organ prolapse. We, therefore, assessed the evidence at the time of approval for transvaginal mesh products and the impact of safety studies the FDA mandated in 2012 because of emerging harms. Methods: We used FDA databases to determine the evidence for approval of transvaginal mesh. To create a 'family tree' of device equivalence, we used the 510(k) regulatory approval of the 1985 Mersilene Mesh (Ethicon) and the 1996 ProteGen Sling (Boston Scientific), searched for all subsequently related device approvals, and for the first published randomised trial evidence. We assessed compliance with all FDA 522 orders issued in 2012 requiring postmarketing surveillance studies. Results: We found 61 devices whose approval ultimately relied on claimed equivalence to the Mersilene Mesh and the ProteGen Sling. We found no clinical trials evidence for these 61 devices at the time of approval. Publication of randomised clinical trials occurred at a median of 5 years after device approval (range 1-14 years). Analysis of 119 FDA 522 orders revealed that in 79 (66%) the manufacturer ceased market distribution of the device, and in 26 (22%) the manufacturer had changed the indication. Only seven studies (six cohorts and new randomised controlled trial) covering 11 orders were recruiting participants (none had reported outcomes). Conclusions: Transvaginal mesh products for pelvic organ prolapse have been approved on the basis of weak evidence over the last 20 years. Devices have inherited approval status from a few products. A publicly accessible registry of licensed invasive devices, with details of marketing status and linked evidence, should be created and maintained at the time of approval.
\n \n\n \n \n\u00a9 Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. Reporting bias is a major threat to the validity and credibility of systematic reviews. This article outlines the rationale for accessing clinical study reports and other regulatory documents (regulatory data) as a means of addressing reporting bias and identifies factors that may help decide whether (or not) to include regulatory data in systematic reviews. The article also describes the origins and current state of regulatory data access and summarises a survey of current systematic reviewers' practices in considering regulatory data for inclusion in systematic reviews. How to access and extract regulatory data is not addressed. Organisations and other stakeholders such as Cochrane should encourage the use of data from clinical study reports as an important source of data in reviews of pharmaceutical interventions particularly when the intervention in question is of high importance and the risk of reporting bias is great.
\n \n\n \n \n\u00a9 2014 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. In recent years there has been much debate and controversy surrounding the efficacy and safety of neuraminidase inhibitors for influenza, in part because the data underlying certain efficacy claims were not available for independent scrutiny. In 2014, a Cochrane review was published, based exclusively on an almost complete set of clinical study reports and other regulatory documents. Clinical study reports can run to thousands of pages, providing an extensive amount of information on the planning, conduct and results of each trial. After a protracted campaign to obtain the reports, the manufacturers of the medications provided them unconditionally. The review authors subsequently published the underlying documents simultaneously with the Cochrane review, endorsing the concept of open science. In the following commentary, the background to and results of this review are summarized and put into clinical context.
\n \n\n \n \nBackground: The Cochrane risk of bias tool is a prominent instrument used to evaluate potential biases in clinical trials. In three updates of our Cochrane review on neuraminidase inhibitors, we assessed risk of bias on the same trials using different levels of detail: the trials in journal publications, in core reports, and in full clinical study reports. Here we analyse whether progressively greater amounts of information and detail in full clinical study reports (including trial protocols, statistical analysis plans, certificates of analyses, individual participant data listings and randomisation lists) affected our risk of bias assessments.Methods and findings: We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess and compare risk of bias in 14 oseltamivir trials (reported in 10 clinical study reports) obtained from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the manufacturer, Roche. With more detailed information, reported in clinical study reports, no previous assessment of 'high' risk of bias was reclassified as 'low' or 'unclear' in the main analysis, and over half (55%, 34/62) of the previous assessments of 'low' risk of bias were reclassified as 'high'. Most assessments of 'unclear' risk of bias (67%, or 28/42) were reclassified as 'high' risk of bias when our judgements were based on full clinical study reports. The limits of our study were our relative inexperience in dealing with large information sets, sometimes subjective bias judgements and focus on industry trials. Comparison with journal publications was not possible because of the low number of trials published.Conclusions: We found that as information increased in the document, this increased our assessment of bias. This may mean that risk of bias has been insufficiently assessed in Cochrane reviews based on journal publications.
\n \n\n \n \nBackground Air travel may be associated with the spread of viruses via infected passengers and potentially through in-flight transmission. Given the novelty of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, transmission associated with air travel is based on what is known about the dynamics of transmission of other respiratory virus infections, especially those due to other coronaviruses and influenza. Our objective was to provide a rapid summary and evaluation of relevant data on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 aboard aircraft, report important policy implications, and highlight research gaps requiring urgent attention. Methods This review is part of an Open Evidence Review on Transmission Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2. We searched LitCovid, medRxiv, Google Scholar, and the WHO Covid-19 database from 1 February 2020 to 27 January 2021 and included studies on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 aboard aircraft. We assessed study quality based on five criteria and reported important findings. Results We included 18 studies on in-flight transmission of SARS-CoV-2, representing 130 unique flights and two studies on wastewater from aircraft. The overall quality of reporting was low. Two wastewater studies reported PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 samples, but with relatively high Cycle threshold values ranging from 36 to 40. The definition of an index case was very heterogeneous across the studies. The proportion of contacts traced ranged from 0.68% to 100%. In total, the authors successfully traced 2800/19729 passengers, 140/180 crew members, and 8/8 medical staff. Altogether, 273 index cases were reported, with 64 secondary cases. No secondary cases were reported in three studies, each investigating one flight. The secondary attack rate among the studies that followed up >80% of the passengers and crew (including data on 10 flights) varied between 0% and 8.2%. The included studies reported on the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic, and symptomatic individuals. Viral cultures were performed in two studies, with 10 positive results reported. Genomic sequencing and phylogenetic analysis were performed in individuals from four flights, with the completeness of genomic similarity ranging from 81-100%. Conclusion Current evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted during aircraft travel, but the published data do not permit any conclusive assessment of the likelihood and extent. Furthermore, the quality of evidence from most published studies is low. The variation in study design and methodology restricts the comparison of findings across studies. Standardized guidelines for conducting and reporting future studies of transmission on aircrafts should be developed.
\n \n\n \n \nSummary Objective to review the evidence from studies comparing SARS-CoV-2 culture, the best indicator of current infection and infectiousness with the results of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Methods We searched LitCovid, medRxiv, Google Scholar and the WHO Covid-19 database for Covid-19 using the terms \u2018viral culture\u2019 or \u2018viral replication\u2019 and associated synonyms up to 10 September 2020. We carried out citation matching and included studies reporting attempts to culture or observe SARS-CoV-2 matching with cutoffs for RT-PCR positivity. One reviewer extracted data for each study and a second reviewer checked end edited the extraction and summarised the narratively by sample: fecal, respiratory, environment or mixed. Where necessary we wrote to corresponding authors of the included or background papers for additional information. We assessed quality using a modified QUADAS 2 risk of bias tool. This review is part of an Open Evidence Review on Transmission Dynamics of COVID-19. Summaries of the included studies and the protocol (v1) are available at: https://www.cebm.net/evidence-synthesis/transmission-dynamics-of-covid-19/ . Searches are updated every 2 weeks. This is the fourth version of this review that was first published on the 4th of August and updated on the 21t of August Results We included 29 studies reporting culturing or observing tissue invasion by SARS-CoV in sputum, naso or oropharyngeal, urine, stool, blood and environmental samples from patients diagnosed with Covid-19. The data are suggestive of a relation between the time from collection of a specimen to test, cycle threshold and symptom severity. The quality of the studies was moderate with lack of standardised reporting. Twelve studies reported that Ct values were significantly lower and log copies higher in samples producing live virus culture. Five studies reported no growth in samples based on a Ct cut-off value. These values ranged from CT > 24 for no growth to Ct \u2265 34. Two studies report a strong relationship between Ct value and ability to recover infectious virus and that the odds of live virus culture reduced by 33% for every one unit increase in Ct. A cut-off RT-PCR Ct > 30 was associated with non-infectious samples. One study that analysed the NSP, N and E gene fragments of the PCR result reported different cut-off thresholds depending on the gene fragment analysed. The duration of RNA shedding detected by PCR was far longer compared to detection of live culture. Six out of eight studies reported RNA shedding for longer than 14 days. Yet, infectivity declines after day 8 even among cases with ongoing high viral loads. A very small proportion of people re-testing positive after hospital discharge or with high Ct are likely to be infectious. Conclusion Prospective routine testing of reference and culture specimens are necessary for each country involved in the pandemic to establish the usefulness and reliability of PCR for Covid-19 and its relation to patients\u2019 factors. Infectivity is related to the date of onset of symptoms and cycle threshold level. A binary Yes/No approach to the interpretation RT-PCR unvalidated against viral culture will result in false positives with possible segregation of large numbers of people who are no longer infectious and hence not a threat to public health.
\n \n\n \n \nBackground: SARS-CoV-2 RNA has been detected in fomites which suggests the virus could be transmitted via inanimate objects. However, there is uncertainty about the mechanistic pathway for such transmissions. Our objective was to identify, appraise and summarise the evidence from primary studies and systematic reviews assessing the role of fomites in transmission. Methods: This review is part of an Open Evidence Review on Transmission Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2. We conduct ongoing searches using WHO Covid-19 Database, LitCovid, medRxiv, and Google Scholar; assess study quality based on five criteria and report important findings on an ongoing basis. Results: We found 64 studies: 63 primary studies and one systematic review (n=35). The settings for primary studies were predominantly in hospitals (69.8%) including general wards, ICU and SARS-CoV-2 isolation wards. There were variations in the study designs including timing of sample collection, hygiene procedures, ventilation settings and cycle threshold. The overall quality of reporting was low to moderate. The frequency of positive SARS-CoV-2 tests across 51 studies (using RT-PCR) ranged from 0.5% to 75%. Cycle threshold values ranged from 20.8 to 44.1. Viral concentrations were reported in 17 studies; however, discrepancies in the methods for estimation prevented comparison. Eleven studies (17.5%) attempted viral culture, but none found a cytopathic effect. Results of the systematic review showed that healthcare settings were most frequently tested (25/35, 71.4%), but laboratories reported the highest frequency of contaminated surfaces (20.5%, 17/83). Conclusions: The majority of studies report identification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA on inanimate surfaces; however, there is a lack of evidence demonstrating the recovery of viable virus. Lack of positive viral cultures suggests that the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through fomites is low. Heterogeneity in study designs and methodology prevents comparisons of findings across studies. Standardized guidelines for conducting and reporting research on fomite transmission is warranted.
\n \n\n \n \nBACKGROUND: We aimed to review the evidence from studies relating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) culture with the results of reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and other variables that may influence the interpretation of the test, such as time from symptom onset. METHODS: We searched LitCovid, medRxiv, Google Scholar, and the World Health Organization coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) database for COVID-19 up to 10 September 2020. We included studies attempting to culture or observe SARS-CoV-2 in specimens with RT-PCR positivity. Studies were dual-extracted and the data summarized narratively by specimen type. Where necessary, we contacted corresponding authors of included papers for additional information. We assessed quality using a modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS 2) risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: We included 29 studies reporting attempts at culturing, or observing tissue infection by, SARS-CoV-2 in sputum, nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal, urine, stool, blood, and environmental specimens. The quality of the studies was moderate with lack of standardized reporting. The data suggest a relationship between the time from onset of symptom to the timing of the specimen test, cycle threshold (Ct), and symptom severity. Twelve studies reported that Ct values were significantly lower and log copies higher in specimens producing live virus culture. Two studies reported that the odds of live virus culture were reduced by approximately 33% for every 1-unit increase in Ct. Six of 8 studies reported detectable RNA for >14 days, but infectious potential declined after day 8 even among cases with ongoing high viral loads. Four studies reported viral culture from stool specimens. CONCLUSIONS: Complete live viruses are necessary for transmission, not the fragments identified by PCR. Prospective routine testing of reference and culture specimens and their relationship to symptoms, signs, and patient co-factors should be used to define the reliability of PCR for assessing infectious potential. Those with high Ct are unlikely to have infectious potential.
\n \n\n \n \nBackground. In Italy many diabetics still lack adequate care in general practice. We assessed the effectiveness of different strategies for the implementation of an evidence-based guideline for the management of non-complicated type 2 diabetes among General Practitioners (GPs) of Lazio region. Methods. Three-arm cluster-randomised controlled trial with GPs as units of randomisation (clusters). 252 GPs were randomised either to an active strategy (training module with administration of the guideline), or to a passive dissemination (administration of the guideline only), or to usual care (control). Data on prescriptions of tests and drugs were collected by existing information systems, whereas patients' data came from GPs' databases. Process outcomes were measured at the cluster level one year after the intervention. Primary outcomes concerned the measurement of glycosilated haemoglobin and the commissioning of micro- and macrovascular complications assessment tests. In order to assess the physicians' drug prescribing behaviour secondary outcomes were also calculated. Results. GPs identified 6395 uncomplicated type 2 patients with a high prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors. Data on GPs baseline performance show low proportions of glycosilated haemoglobin assessments. Results of the C-RCT analysis indicate that the active implementation strategy was ineffective relating to all primary outcomes (respectively, OR 1.06 [95% IC: 0.76-1.46]; OR 1.07 [95% IC: 0.80-1.43]; OR 1.4 [95% IC:0.91-2.16]. Similarly, passive dissemination of the guideline showed no effect. Conclusion. In our region compliance of GPs with guidelines was not enhanced by a structured learning programme. Implementation through organizational measures appears to be essential to induce behavioural changes. Trial registration. ISRCTN80116232. \u00a9 2007 Perria et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
\n \n\n \n \n\u00a9 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Background: Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are stockpiled and recommended by public health agencies for treating and preventing seasonal and pandemic influenza. They are used clinically worldwide. Objectives: To describe the potential benefits and harms of NIs for influenza in all age groups by reviewing all clinical study reports of published and unpublished randomised, placebo-controlled trials and regulatory comments. Search methods: We searched trial registries, electronic databases (to 22 July 2013) and regulatory archives, and corresponded with manufacturers to identify all trials. We also requested clinical study reports. We focused on the primary data sources of manufacturers but we checked that there were no published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from non-manufacturer sources by running electronic searches in the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Embase.com, PubMed (not MEDLINE), the Database of Reviews of Effects, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Economic Evaluations Database. Selection criteria: Randomised, placebo-controlled trials on adults and children with confirmed or suspected exposure to naturally occurring influenza. Data collection and analysis: We extracted clinical study reports and assessed risk of bias using purpose-built instruments. We analysed the effects of zanamivir and oseltamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms, influenza outcomes, complications, hospitalisations and adverse events in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. All trials were sponsored by the manufacturers. Main results: We obtained 107 clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), GlaxoSmithKline and Roche. We accessed comments by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), EMA and Japanese regulator. We included 53 trials in Stage 1 (a judgement of appropriate study design) and 46 in Stage 2 (formal analysis), including 20 oseltamivir (9623 participants) and 26 zanamivir trials (14,628 participants). Inadequate reporting put most of the zanamivir studies and half of the oseltamivir studies at a high risk of selection bias. There were inadequate measures in place to protect 11 studies of oseltamivir from performance bias due to non-identical presentation of placebo. Attrition bias was high across the oseltamivir studies and there was also evidence of selective reporting for both the zanamivir and oseltamivir studies. The placebo interventions in both sets of trials may have contained active substances. Time to first symptom alleviation. For the treatment of adults, oseltamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms by 16.8 hours (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.4 to 25.1 hours, P < 0.0001). This represents a reduction in the time to first alleviation of symptoms from 7 to 6.3 days. There was no effect in asthmatic children, but in otherwise healthy children there was (reduction by a mean difference of 29 hours, 95% CI 12 to 47 hours, P = 0.001). Zanamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults by 0.60 days (95% CI 0.39 to 0.81 days, P < 0.00001), equating to a reduction in the mean duration of symptoms from 6.6 to 6.0 days. The effect in children was not significant. In subgroup analysis we found no evidence of a difference in treatment effect for zanamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults in the influenza-infected and non-influenza-infected subgroups (P = 0.53). Hospitalisations. Treatment of adults with oseltamivir had no significant effect on hospitalisations: risk difference (RD) 0.15% (95% CI -0.78 to 0.91). There was also no significant effect in children or in prophylaxis. Zanamivir hospitalisation data were unreported. Serious influenza complications or those leading to study withdrawal. In adult treatment trials, oseltamivir did not significantly reduce those complications classified as serious or those which led to study withdrawal (RD 0.07%, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.44), nor in child treatment trials; neither did zanamivir in the treatment of adults or in prophylaxis. There were insufficient events to compare this outcome for oseltamivir in prophylaxis or zanamivir in the treatment of children. Pneumonia. Oseltamivir significantly reduced self reported, investigator-mediated, unverified pneumonia (RD 1.00%, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.49); number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 100 (95% CI 67 to 451) in the treated population. The effect was not significant in the five trials that used a more detailed diagnostic form for pneumonia. There were no definitions of pneumonia (or other complications) in any trial. No oseltamivir treatment studies reported effects on radiologically confirmed pneumonia. There was no significant effect on unverified pneumonia in children. There was no significant effect of zanamivir on either self reported or radiologically confirmed pneumonia. In prophylaxis, zanamivir significantly reduced the risk of self reported, investigator-mediated, unverified pneumonia in adults (RD 0.32%, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.41); NNTB = 311 (95% CI 244 to 1086), but not oseltamivir. Bronchitis, sinusitis and otitis media. Zanamivir significantly reduced the risk of bronchitis in adult treatment trials (RD 1.80%, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.80); NNTB = 56 (36 to 155), but not oseltamivir. Neither NI significantly reduced the risk of otitis media and sinusitis in both adults and children. Harms of treatment. Oseltamivir in the treatment of adults increased the risk of nausea (RD 3.66%, 95% CI 0.90 to 7.39); number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) = 28 (95% CI 14 to 112) and vomiting (RD 4.56%, 95% CI 2.39 to 7.58); NNTH = 22 (14 to 42). The proportion of participants with four-fold increases in antibody titre was significantly lower in the treated group compared to the control group (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.97, I2 statistic = 0%) (5% absolute difference between arms). Oseltamivir significantly decreased the risk of diarrhoea (RD 2.33%, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.81); NNTB = 43 (95% CI 27 to 709) and cardiac events (RD 0.68%, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.0); NNTB = 148 (101 to 2509) compared to placebo during the on-treatment period. There was a dose-response effect on psychiatric events in the two oseltamivir \"pivotal\" treatment trials, WV15670 and WV15671, at 150 mg (standard dose) and 300 mg daily (high dose) (P = 0.038). In the treatment of children, oseltamivir induced vomiting (RD 5.34%, 95% CI 1.75 to 10.29); NNTH = 19 (95% CI 10 to 57). There was a significantly lower proportion of children on oseltamivir with a four-fold increase in antibodies (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00, I2 = 0%). Prophylaxis. In prophylaxis trials, oseltamivir and zanamivir reduced the risk of symptomatic influenza in individuals (oseltamivir: RD 3.05% (95% CI 1.83 to 3.88); NNTB = 33 (26 to 55); zanamivir: RD 1.98% (95% CI 0.98 to 2.54); NNTB = 51 (40 to 103)) and in households (oseltamivir: RD 13.6% (95% CI 9.52 to 15.47); NNTB = 7 (6 to 11); zanamivir: RD 14.84% (95% CI 12.18 to 16.55); NNTB = 7 (7 to 9)). There was no significant effect on asymptomatic influenza (oseltamivir: RR 1.14 (95% CI 0.39 to 3.33); zanamivir: RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.24)). Non-influenza, influenza-like illness could not be assessed due to data not being fully reported. In oseltamivir prophylaxis studies, psychiatric adverse events were increased in the combined on- and off-treatment periods (RD 1.06%, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.76); NNTH = 94 (95% CI 36 to 1538) in the study treatment population. Oseltamivir increased the risk of headaches whilst on treatment (RD 3.15%, 95% CI 0.88 to 5.78); NNTH = 32 (95% CI 18 to 115), renal events whilst on treatment (RD 0.67%, 95% CI -2.93 to 0.01); NNTH = 150 (NNTH 35 to NNTB > 1000) and nausea whilst on treatment (RD 4.15%, 95% CI 0.86 to 9.51); NNTH = 25 (95% CI 11 to 116). Authors' conclusions: Oseltamivir and zanamivir have small, non-specific effects on reducing the time to alleviation of influenza symptoms in adults, but not in asthmatic children. Using either drug as prophylaxis reduces the risk of developing symptomatic influenza. Treatment trials with oseltamivir or zanamivir do not settle the question of whether the complications of influenza (such as pneumonia) are reduced, because of a lack of diagnostic definitions. The use of oseltamivir increases the risk of adverse effects, such as nausea, vomiting, psychiatric effects and renal events in adults and vomiting in children. The lower bioavailability may explain the lower toxicity of zanamivir compared to oseltamivir. The balance between benefits and harms should be considered when making decisions about use of both NIs for either the prophylaxis or treatment of influenza. The influenza virus-specific mechanism of action proposed by the producers does not fit the clinical evidence.
\n \n\n \n \n