Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32571773›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2020

Oseltamivir for coronavirus illness: post-hoc exploratory analysis of an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial in European primary care from 2016 to 2018.

Samuel Coenen, Alike W van der Velden, Daniela Cianci, Herman Goossens, Emily Bongard, Benjamin R Saville, Nina Gobat, Muireann de Paor, Margareta Ieven, Theo J Verheij and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readPragmatic Clinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Lipid rafts as viral entry routes and immune platforms: A double-edged sword in SARS-CoV-2 infection?Biochimica et biophysica acta. Molecular and cell biology of lipids · 2022
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Potential role of interferons in treating COVID-19 patients.International immunopharmacology · 2021
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.

Samuel CoenenCentre for General Practice, Department of Family Medicine & Health Policy (FAMPOP); Laboratory of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine & Infectious Disease Institute (VAXINFECTIO), University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-1238-8052
Alike W van der VeldenJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Daniela CianciJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Herman GoossensLaboratory of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute (VAXINFECTIO), University of Antwerp, Antwerp; Laboratory of Clinical Microbiology, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium.
Emily BongardDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, UK.
Benjamin R SavilleBerry Consultants, Austin, Texas, US; adjunct assistant professor, Vanderbilt University, Department of Biostatistics, Nashville, Tennessee, US.
Nina GobatDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, UK.
Muireann de PaorDepartment of General Practice, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland School of Medicine, Dublin, Ireland.
Margareta IevenLaboratory of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute (VAXINFECTIO), University of Antwerp, Antwerp; Laboratory of Clinical Microbiology, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium.
Theo J VerheijJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Christopher C ButlerDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0102-3453
University of Oxford · GBUtrecht University · NLUniversity of Antwerp · BEInfectious Diseases Institute · UGRoyal College of Surgeons in Ireland · IEVanderbilt University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients infected with the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) are being treated empirically with oseltamivir, but there is little evidence from randomised controlled trials to support the treatment of coronavirus infections with oseltamivir.

aimTo determine whether adding oseltamivir to usual care reduces time to recovery in symptomatic patients who have tested positive for coronavirus (not including SARS-CoV-2). DESIGN AND

settingExploratory analysis of data from an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial during three influenza seasons, from 2016 to 2018, in primary care research networks, in 15 European countries.

methodPatients aged ≥1 year presenting to primary care with influenza-like illness (ILI), and who tested positive for coronavirus (not including SARS-CoV-2), were randomised to usual care or usual care plus oseltamivir. The primary outcome was time to recovery defined as a return to usual activities, with minor or absent fever, headache, and muscle ache.

resultsCoronaviruses (CoV-229E, CoV-OC43, CoV-KU1 and CoV-NL63) were identified in 308 (9%) out of 3266 randomised participants in the trial; 153 of these were allocated to usual care and 155 to usual care plus oseltamivir; the primary outcome was ascertained in 136 and 147 participants, respectively. The median time to recovery was shorter in patients randomised to oseltamivir: 4 days (interquartile range [IQR] 3-6) versus 5 days (IQR 3-8; hazard ratio 1.31; 95% confidence interval = 1.03 to 1.66;

conclusionPrimary care patients with ILI testing positive for coronavirus (not including SARS-CoV-2) recovered sooner when oseltamivir was added to usual care compared with usual care alone. This may be of relevance to the primary care management of COVID-19.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAntiviral AgentsChildCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Drug Therapy, CombinationEuropeFemaleFeverHeadacheHumansInfluenza, HumanMaleMiddle AgedAntiviral AgentsOseltamivircoronavirusCOVID-19Europeoseltamivirprimary carerandomised controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID32571773
PMCPMC7311109
OpenAlexW3035910821

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.