Comparative clinical and economic evaluation of two alternative antiviral therapy regimens for influenza patients
https://doi.org/10.22625/2072-6732-2018-10-2-110-116
Abstract
In the Russian Federation, the number of new cases of influenza
and SARS each year reaches 30 million people, and the annual total economic damage is estimated at 40 billion rubles, accounting for about 80% of the damage from all infectious diseases. Today, one of the main priorities of confronting the consequences of the annual epidemics of influenza is the development and introduction into clinical practice of new drugs with proven effectiveness and safety, the use of which is economically feasible.
Objective. Conduct a clinical and economic analysis of two alternative regimens for treating influenza patients using the modern drug Triasavirin® and the known Tamiflu® neuraminidase inhibitor.
Materials and methods. The study included 127 patients with a laboratory confirmed diagnosis of «influenza». All patients were divided into two groups. The main group consisted of 82 patients who received Triazavirin® 1 capsule (250 mg) 3 times a day for 5 days. The comparison group consisted of 45 patients who received Tamiflu® 1 capsule (75 mg) 2 times a day for 5 days. To conduct a clinical and economic evaluation of two alternative treatment regimens, cost-effectiveness factors were calculated, such as the ratio of the cost of therapy to the indicator of its effectiveness. The analyzed events were: (1) recovery by the 5th day from the start of treatment; (2) temperature normalization by the 5th day from the start of treatment; (3) no symptoms of intoxication (headache, myalgia, pain / rei in the eyeballs) by the 5th day from the start of treatment; (4) absence of catarrhal manifestations (pain / sore throat, cough) to the 10th day from the beginning of treatment.
Results. The use of the drug Triazavirin® for treatment of influenza patients in comparison with the inhibitor of neuraminidase with Tamiflu® is economically viable, both with respect to the timing of recovery (cost-effectiveness ratio: 935,57 rubles / unit vs 1859,39 rubles / unit) and normalization of temperature body (cost- effectiveness ratio: 869,53 rubles / unit vs. 2014,33 rubles / unit), and with respect to the duration of intoxication (cost-effectiveness ratio: 859,42 rubles / unit vs. 1473,90 rub ./unit) and catarrhal (coefficient of expenditure e ciency: 869,53 rubles / unit against 1611,47 rubles / unit) syndromes.
Conclusion. Triazavirin® is a new effective antiviral agent for the treatment of influenza. The use of Triazavirin® in the treatment of patients with influenza is economically viable, due to significant budget savings both in terms of the cost of treatment, and the reduction in concomitant therapy and the reduction in the period of temporary disability of working patients.
About the Authors
I. I. TokinRussian Federation
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
V. V. Tsvetkov
Russian Federation
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
G. S. Golobokov
Russian Federation
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
References
1. Nacional’noe nauchnoe obshhestvo infekcionistov: Klinicheskie rekomendacii: ostrye respiratornye virusnye zabolevanija u vzroslyh; 2014.
2. Vjalov, S.S. Ostrye respiratornye virusnye infekcii: kak lechit’ i preduprezhdat’ jeffektivno / S.S. Vjalov, V.I. Kuznecov // Poliklinika. – 2009. – № 5. – S. 28–31.
3. Mihajlov, A.A. Spravochnik prakticheskogo vracha / A.A. Mihajlov, L.I. Doreckij. – M.: Jeksmo. – 2007.
4. Loginova, S.Ja. Izuchenie lechebnoj jeffektivnosti Triazavirina v otnoshenii jeksperimental’noj formy kleshhevogo jencefalita u belyh myshej / S.Ja. Loginova, S.V. Borisevich, O.N. Chupahin, i dr. // Antibiotiki i himioterapija. – 2015. – № 60. – S. 7–8.
5. Loginova, S.Ja. Izuchenie protivovirusnoj aktivnosti triazavirina v otnoshenii vozbuditelja kleshhevogo jencefalita v kul’ture kletok / S.Ja. Loginova, i dr. // Antibiotiki i himioterapija. – 2014. – T. 59, №1–2. – S. 3–5.
6. Loginova, S.Ja. Izuchenie protivovirusnoj aktivnosti triazavirina v otnoshenii vozbuditelja grippa A (N5N1) v kul’ture kletok / S.Ja. Loginova, S.V. Borisevich, V.L. Rusinov, i dr. // Antibiotiki i himioterapija. – 2007. – T. 52, № 11–12. – S. 18–20.
7. Smirnov, T.D. Izuchenie vlijanija remantadina, ribavirina i triazavirina na reprodukciju virusov grippa A v mogoslojnyh i limfoblastoidnyh kletochnyh linijah chelovecheskogo proishozhdenija / T.D. Smirnov // Antibiotiki i himioterapija. – 2011. – T. 56, № 11–12. – S. 11–16.
8. Loginova, S.Ja. Lechebnaja jeffektivnost’ novogo otechestvennogo preparata «Triazavirin» v otnoshenii vozbuditelja grippa A (H5N1) / S.Ja. Loginova, S.V. Borisevich, V.A. Maksimov, V.L. Rusinov, i dr. // Antibiotiki i himioterapija. – 2011. – T.56, № 1–2. – S. 10–13.
9. Loginova, S.Ja. Izuchenie profilakticheskoj jeffektivnosti triazavirina v otnoshenii vozbuditelja grippa A (N5N1) / S.Ja. Loginova, S.V. Borisevich, V.A. Maksimov, V.L. Rusinov, i dr. // Antibiotiki i himioterapija. – 2010. – T. 55, № 9– 10. – S. 25–28.
10. Loginova, S.Ja. Izuchenie profilakticheskoj jeffektivnosti Triazavirina v otnoshenii jeksperimental›noj formy kleshhevogo jencefalita u belyh myshej / S.Ja. Loginova, S.V. Borisevich, O.N. Chupahin, i dr. // Antibiotiki i himioterapija. – 2015. – T. 60. – S. 5–6.
11. Deeva, Je.G. Protivovirusnyj preparat Triazavirin: ot skrininga do klinicheskoj aprobacii / Je.G. Deeva, V.L. Rusinov, O.I. Kiselev, i dr. // Razrabotka i registracija lekarstvennyh sredstv. – 2014. – T. 2, № 7. – S. 144–151.
12. Deeva, Je.G. Novyj protivovirusnyj preparat «Triazavirin ». Rezul›taty I fazy klinicheskogo issledovanija / Je.G. Deeva, O.I. Kiselev, T.I. Mel›nikova, A.S. Kiselev, i dr. // Jepidemiologija i infekcionnye bolezni. – 2013. – № 5. – S. 20–26.
13. Loginova, S.Ja. Izuchenie protivovirusnoj aktivnosti triazavirina v otnoshenii vozbuditelja grippa A (N5N1) v kul›ture kletok / S.Ja. Loginova, S.V. Borisevich, V.L. Rusinov, i dr. // Antibiotiki i himioterapija. – 2007. – T. 52, № 11–12. – S. 18–20.
14. Smirnov, T.D. Izuchenie vlijanija remantadina, ribavirina i triazavirina na reprodukciju virusov grippa A v mogoslojnyh i limfoblastoidnyh kletochnyh linijah chelovecheskogo proishozhdenija / T.D. Smirnov // Antibiotiki i himioterapija. – 2011. – T. 56, № 11–12. – S. 11–16.
15. Loginova, S.Ja. Ocenka toksichnosti novogo otechestvennogo protivogrippoznogo himiopreparata triazavirin / S.Ja. Loginova, i dr. // Antibiotiki i himioterapija. – 2012. – T. 57, № 11–12. – S. 8–10.
16. Hodge H., et al. Clinical toxicology of commercial products: Acute Poisoning. IV unit Baltimore, 1976. 332 p.
17. Kiselev, O.I. Novyj protivovirusnyj preparat Triazavirin. Rezul›taty II fazy klinicheskogo issledovanija / O.I. Kiselev, Je.G. Deeva, T.I. Mel›nikova, V.L. Rusinov, i dr. // Voprosy virusologii. – 2012. – № 6. – S. 9–12.
18. Sologub, T.V. Sravnitel›naja jeffektivnost› i bezopasnost› primenenija protivovirusnyh preparatov v terapii bol›nyh grippom / T.V. Sologub, I.I. Tokin, A.S. Midikari, V.V. Cvetkov // Infekcionnye bolezni. – 2017. – T. 15, № 3. – S. 25–32.
Review
For citations:
Tokin I.I., Tsvetkov V.V., Golobokov G.S. Comparative clinical and economic evaluation of two alternative antiviral therapy regimens for influenza patients. Journal Infectology. 2018;10(2):110-116. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22625/2072-6732-2018-10-2-110-116