Effect of double dose oseltamivir on clinical and virological outcomes in children and adults admitted to hospital with severe influenza: double blind randomised controlled trial

BMJ. 2013 May 30:346:f3039. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f3039.

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the validity of recommendations in treatment guidelines to use higher than approved doses of oseltamivir in patients with severe influenza.

Design: Double blind randomised trial.

Setting: Thirteen hospitals in Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Participants: Patients aged ≥ 1 year admitted to hospital with confirmed severe influenza.

Interventions: Oral oseltamivir at double dose (150 mg twice a day/paediatric equivalent) versus standard dose (75 mg twice a day/paediatric equivalent).

Main outcome measure: Viral status according to reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for influenza RNA in nasal and throat swabs on day five.

Results: Of 326 patients (including 246 (75.5%) children aged <15), 165 and 161 were randomised to double or standard dose oseltamivir, respectively. Of these, 260 (79.8%) were infected with influenza virus A (133 (40.8%) with A/H3N2, 72 (22.1%) with A/H1N1-pdm09, 38 (11.7%) with seasonal A/H1N1, 17 (5.2%) with A/H5N1) and 53 (16.2%) with influenza virus B. A further 3.9% (13) were false positive by rapid antigen test (negative by RT-PCR and no rise in convalescent haemagglutination inhibition titers). Similar proportions of patients were negative for RT-PCR on day five of treatment: 115/159 (72.3%, 95% confidence interval 64.9% to 78.7%) double dose recipients versus 105/154 (68.2%, 60.5% to 75.0%) standard dose recipients; difference 4.2% (-5.9 to 14.2); P=0.42. No differences were found in clearance of virus in subgroup analyses by virus type/subtype, age, and duration of illness before randomisation. Mortality was similar: 12/165 (7.3%, 4.2% to 12.3%) in double dose recipients versus 9/161 (5.6%, 3.0% to 10.3%) in standard dose recipients. No differences were found between double and standard dose arms in median days on supplemental oxygen (3 (interquartile range 2-5) v 3.5 (2-7)), in intensive care (4.5 (3-6) v 5 (2-11), and on mechanical ventilation (2.5 (1-16) v 8 (1-16)), respectively. No important differences in tolerability were found.

Conclusions: There were no virological or clinical advantages with double dose oseltamivir compared with standard dose in patients with severe influenza admitted to hospital.

Registration: Clinical Trials NCT00298233.

Publication types

  • Multicenter Study
  • Randomized Controlled Trial
  • Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Administration, Oral
  • Adult
  • Antiviral Agents / administration & dosage
  • Child
  • Clinical Protocols / standards
  • Dose-Response Relationship, Drug
  • Double-Blind Method
  • Hemagglutination Inhibition Tests / statistics & numerical data
  • Hospitalization / statistics & numerical data
  • Humans
  • Indonesia
  • Infant
  • Influenza A virus* / classification
  • Influenza A virus* / drug effects
  • Influenza A virus* / physiology
  • Influenza B virus* / drug effects
  • Influenza B virus* / physiology
  • Influenza, Human* / drug therapy
  • Influenza, Human* / mortality
  • Influenza, Human* / physiopathology
  • Influenza, Human* / virology
  • Middle Aged
  • Oseltamivir / administration & dosage*
  • Practice Guidelines as Topic
  • Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction / methods
  • Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction / statistics & numerical data
  • Severity of Illness Index
  • Singapore
  • Thailand
  • Treatment Outcome
  • Vietnam

Substances

  • Antiviral Agents
  • Oseltamivir

Associated data

  • ClinicalTrials.gov/NCT00298233