Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33006445›Full record

Trial reportInfluenza and other respiratory viruses2021

Intravenous peramivir vs oral oseltamivir in high-risk emergency department patients with influenza: Results from a pilot randomized controlled study.

Yu-Hsiang Hsieh, Andrea F Dugas, Frank LoVecchio, Breana McBryde, Erin P Ricketts, Kathryn Saliba-Shaw, Richard E Rothman

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Influenza and other respiratory viruses, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yu-Hsiang HsiehDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1616-8014
Andrea F DugasDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Frank LoVecchioDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Breana McBrydeDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Erin P RickettsDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Kathryn Saliba-ShawDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Richard E RothmanDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · USUniversity of Arizona · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeramivir offers a single-dose intravenous (IV) treatment option for influenza (vs 5-day oral dosing for oseltamivir). We sought to compare outcomes of emergency department (ED) patients at high risk for influenza complications treated with IV peramivir vs oral oseltamivir.

methodsDuring the 2015-16 and 2016-17 influenza seasons, adult patients in two US EDs were randomized to either oral oseltamivir or IV peramivir treatment group. Eligibility included positive molecular influenza test; met CDC criteria for antiviral treatment; able to provide informed consent and agree to follow-up assessment. Outcomes were measured by clinical end-point indicators, including FLU-PRO Score, Ordinal Scale, Patient Global Impression on Severity Score, and Karnofsky Performance Scale for 14 days. Non-inferior t test was performed to assess comparative outcomes between the two groups.

resultsFive hundred and seventy-five (68%) of 847 influenza-positive patients were approached. Two hundred and eighty-four met enrollment criteria and 179 were enrolled; of these 95 (53%) were randomized to peramivir, and 84 to oseltamivir. Average FLU-PRO score at baseline was similar (peramivir: 2.67 vs oseltamivir: 2.52); the score decreased over time for both groups (day 5: peramivir: 1.71 vs oseltamivir: 1.62; day 10: peramivir: 1.48 vs oseltamivir: 1.37; day 14: peramivir: 1.40 vs oseltamivir: 1.33; all P < .05 for significantly non-inferior). Influenza-related complications were similar between two groups (All: peramivir: 31% vs oseltamivir: 21%, P > .05; pneumonia: peramivir: 11% vs oseltamivir: 14%, P > .05).

conclusionsClinical outcomes of influenza-infected patients treated with single-dose IV peramivir were comparable to those treated with oral oseltamivir, suggesting potential utility of peramivir for influenza-infected patients in the ED.

Indexed as

Influenza, HumanOseltamivirAcids, CarbocyclicAdultAntiviral AgentsCyclopentanesEmergency Service, HospitalGuanidinesHumansPilot ProjectsTreatment OutcomeAcids, CarbocyclicAntiviral AgentsCyclopentanesGuanidinesOseltamivirperamiviremergency departmentinfluenzaoseltamivirperamivir

Identifiers

PMID33006445
PMCPMC7767951
OpenAlexW3091066923

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.