Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Research

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 Christopher C Butler
British Journal of General Practice 2020; 70 (696): e444-e449. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp20X711941
Samuel Coenen
Centre for General Practice, Department of Family Medicine & Health Policy (FAMPOP); Laboratory of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine & Infectious Disease Institute (VAXINFECTIO), University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Roles: Professor clinical epidemiology
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Samuel Coenen
Alike W van der Velden
Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Roles: Assistant professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniela Cianci
Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Roles: Assistant professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Herman Goossens
Laboratory of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute (VAXINFECTIO), University of Antwerp, Antwerp; Laboratory of Clinical Microbiology, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium.
Roles: Professor of medical microbiology
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Emily Bongard
Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, UK.
Roles: Senior clinical trial manager
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Benjamin R Saville
Berry Consultants, Austin, Texas, US; adjunct assistant professor, Vanderbilt University, Department of Biostatistics, Nashville, Tennessee, US.
Roles: Senior statistical scientist
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nina Gobat
Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, UK.
Roles: Senior researcher
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Muireann de Paor
Department of General Practice, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland School of Medicine, Dublin, Ireland.
Roles: Research fellow and GP lecturer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Margareta Ieven
Laboratory of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute (VAXINFECTIO), University of Antwerp, Antwerp; Laboratory of Clinical Microbiology, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium.
Roles: Professor of medical microbiology
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Theo J Verheij
Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Roles: Professor of general practice
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christopher C Butler
Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, UK.
Roles: Professor of primary care
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Christopher C Butler
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Patients 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.

Aim To 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 setting Exploratory 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.

Method Patients 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.

Results Coronaviruses (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; P = 0.026).

Conclusion Primary 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.

  • coronavirus
  • COVID-19
  • Europe
  • oseltamivir
  • primary care
  • randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Patients infected with the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, and suffering from COVID-19 are currently being treated with drug combinations that include oseltamivir.1 The authors had previously found that adding oseltamivir to usual primary care for influenza-like illness (ILI) accelerates recovery by about 1 day in those with ILI, and longer in those with key risk factors in the ALIC4E study (a randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost effectiveness in primary care).2 This effect did not appear to be mediated by influenza virus status as determined by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results from nasopharyngeal swabs. Outcomes for patients found positive for coronavirus (not including SARS-CoV-2) had not been analysed separately. Given the evolving pandemic, this study set out to conduct a post-hoc exploratory analysis of the open-label, pragmatic, ALIC4E trial data to explore whether adding oseltamivir to usual primary care for patients with ILI who have tested positive for coronavirus (not including SARS-CoV-2) is effective in reducing time to recovery.

METHOD

Study design

This was a post-hoc exploratory analysis of data from the ALIC4E trial, an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial, previously described in full.2,3

Setting and patients

Patients aged ≥1 year presenting to primary care with ILI during three seasonal influenza seasons (15 January 2016 to 12 April 2018) in 15 European countries, randomised in the ALIC4E trial and infected with coronavirus (not including SARS-CoV-2) were eligible for this study. ILI was defined as a sudden onset of self-reported fever, with ≥1 respiratory symptom (cough, sore throat, running or congested nose) and one systemic symptom (headache, muscle ache, sweats or chills, or tiredness), with symptom duration of ≤72 hours during a seasonal influenza epidemic.4 Coronavirus infection was confirmed using the Fast Track Diagnostics Respiratory Pathogens 21 plus real-time PCR assay on baseline swabs.5 An oropharyngeal and nasal swab (COPAN) were taken from those aged <16 years and a nasopharyngeal swab (COPAN) from those aged ≥16 years. PCR results were not available for clinicians to inform management.

Patients with COVID-19 are being treated with drug combinations that include oseltamivir. Evidence from randomised controlled trials for oseltamivir therapy is limited. This study, from 2016 to 2018, found that primary care patients with symptomatic coronavirus infection (not including SARS-CoV-2) recovered sooner when oseltamivir was added to usual care. Therefore, oseltamivir might be considered for the primary care management of (suspected) COVID-19.

How this fits in

Study randomisation

Participants were randomised at the point of care using a remote online electronic data capture system, with a 1:1 ratio between the two arms.

Intervention

Participants were randomised to either usual primary care or usual primary care plus oseltamivir. Adults and children weighing >40 kg, who were randomised to the intervention and able to swallow capsules, were given 75 mg oral oseltamivir twice daily for 5 days. For those aged <13 years, oseltamivir was given in oral suspension, according to weight: 30 mg for those weighing 10–15 kg; 45 mg for those weighing >15–23 kg; 60 mg for those weighing >23–40 kg; and 75 mg for those weighing >40 kg.

Procedures

A baseline case report form was completed covering overall clinician-rated ILI severity, duration of symptoms, comorbidity, temperature, pulse, individual ILI symptom patient-reported severities, and usual care advice (registered by clinician).

Patients were asked to complete a symptom diary for 14 days in order to indicate when they had returned to their usual daily activities and to evaluate fever, running/congested nose, sore throat, headache, cough, shortness of breath, muscle ache, sweats/chills, diarrhoea, nausea/vomiting, abdominal pain, low energy/tiredness, sleeplessness, dizziness, and feeling generally unwell as ‘no’, ‘minor’, ‘moderate’, or ‘major’ problem. These were supplemented with child-specific questions so that the Canadian Acute Respiratory Illness Flu Scale was completed for children aged <13 years.6 Patients were contacted via telephone after 2–4 days, 14–28 days, and 28 days to support study participation, diary completion, monitor intervention adherence, and to ascertain a minimal outcome data set.

Outcome measures

The primary outcome was patient-reported time to recovery, defined as having ‘returned to usual daily activity’, and ‘fever’, ‘headache’, and ‘muscle ache’ rated as ‘minor’ or not problematic. For non-verbal children, ‘clinginess’ replaced ‘headache’ and ‘muscle ache’ when both were unanswered.3 Where diary data were unavailable, data from the 14–28 days telephone call were used, and if that was unavailable, data from the telephone call after 28 days were used. Where data were incomplete, participants were censored at their last contact date or at 28 days.

Statistical analysis

Characteristics of the participants with coronavirus infection in the two study arms are presented. For this exploratory data analysis, the authors produced the Kaplan– Meier survival curves for each treatment group and estimated the hazard ratio (HR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and associated P-value, comparing treatment groups with a Cox proportional hazard regression model. The analysis was performed on the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, which included all randomised patients in the arm they were assigned regardless of treatment received. Missing data were not imputed.

RESULTS

Coronaviruses (CoV-229E, CoV-OC43, CoV-KU1 and CoV-NL63, which are known pathogens in humans) were identified in 308 (9%) of 3266 randomised participants from 21 networks covering 209 primary care practices in 15 European countries over three consecutive influenza seasons. Of these identified cases, 130 were male (42%) and 17 were aged >65 years (6%); 153 were randomised to usual care and 155 were randomised to usual care plus oseltamivir. The primary outcome was ascertained in 136 (89%) and 147 (95%) participants, respectively (Figure 1). Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between the randomisation groups (Table 1). The 25 patients who did not provide primary outcome data were more often male, aged <12 years, 20 (80%) more often included in the final season, and more often had a chronic respiratory condition (see Supplementary Table S1).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Flow of patients in the ALIC4E trial and of those who tested positive for coronavirus (not including SARS-CoV-2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics by treatment group

The Kaplan–Meier plots for time to recovery show faster recovery in patients treated with oseltamivir (Figure 2), with a median of 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 3–8) days for participants randomised to usual care versus 4 days (IQR 3–6) in participants randomised to usual care plus oseltamivir. The mean number of days to recovery for patients was 6.35 days (standard deviation [SD] = 4.93) in the usual care group and 5.20 (SD = 3.93) days in the oseltamivir group. The HR was 1.31 (95% CI = 1.03 to 1.66, P = 0.026) favouring oseltamivir.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Kaplan–Meier curve of time to recovery.

In the usual care group, 54 patients contacted their GP (70 contacts) versus 57 patients in the oseltamivir group (72 contacts) in the first week after inclusion. In the second week after inclusion, 17 patients in the usual care group contacted their GP (21 contacts) versus 14 patients in the oseltamivir group (16 contacts) (data not shown). In the usual care group, seven patients visited the hospital in the 4 weeks after inclusion, of which one stayed overnight, two had an X-ray, with one confirmed pneumonia. In the oseltamivir group, one patient visited the hospital, none stayed overnight, and none had an X-ray (data not shown).

DISCUSSION

Summary

This exploratory analysis of the ALIC4E trial data from 2016 to 2018 suggests that primary care patients with ILI, who tested positive for coronavirus (not including SARS-CoV-2) and received usual care, returned to their usual activities with relevant residual symptoms, minor or absent, in a median of 5 days (mean 6.35 days). Patients also receiving oseltamivir returned about 1 day sooner.

Strengths and limitations

The present pragmatic, open trial design did not allow identification of mechanisms of action, or a measure of how much of the observed effect can be attributed specifically to oseltamivir or other possible effects, but allows the observed results to likely reflect real world effects in primary care.7,8 It should be noted that this was a primary care study and that the findings cannot be extrapolated to more severely ill and/or hospitalised patients. In addition, though unlikely, SARS-CoV-2 may respond differently to oseltamivir.

Comparison with existing literature

This study’s findings are consistent with other studies showing benefit of oseltamivir in all patients with ILI,2 and with previous placebo-controlled evidence for adults and children with ILI, irrespective of infection by influenza or another virus.9–12 Previously published possible explanations include that oseltamivir’s mode of action may include generalised non-specific mechanisms, and/or an action on a wider range of viruses,10 or, that a placebo effect was found in the present study. However, in the ALIC4E trial there was no evidence of a differential relative benefit in subgroups, such as those with lower illness severity where systematic reviews suggest a more marked placebo response.13 In addition, the ALIC4E trial’s overall estimate of benefit is similar to effects found in placebo-controlled trials.

Implications for research and practice

Secondary analysis of data from the placebo-controlled trials of oseltamivir in patients with ILI not caused by influenza viruses, for example by coronaviruses, and new placebo-controlled trials in patients with COVID-19 could help elucidate a causal effect for its benefit in those patients. Meanwhile, adding oseltamivir to usual primary care appears to accelerate recovery by about 1 day in patients with ILI who test positive for coronavirus (not including SARS-CoV-2), and, though the present study has not proven that SARS-CoV-2 responds to oseltamivir, this drug could be considered for the management of primary care patients with (suspected) COVID-19.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the contribution of the other members of the 21 ALIC4E coordinating centres for the hard work and dedication of all their recruitment teams, practices, and local laboratories, and for the altruistic contribution of the study participants.

Notes

Funding

As the ALIC4E trial was part of the Platform foR European Preparedness Against (Re-) emerging Epidemics (PREPARE: www.prepare-europe.eu), it was supported by the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) (grant ref: HEALTH-F3-2013-602525). The funder of the study had no role in the study design; collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders, ‘arms’ length bodies, or other government departments.

Ethical approval

For this secondary analysis no additional ethical approval was required. The trial protocol was approved by National Research Ethics Service Committee South Central — Oxford B. Clinical trial authority approval was obtained from the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. All participating countries gained national research ethics committees and clinical trial authority approval as required.

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

Samuel Coenen, Herman Goossens, Theo J Verheij, and Christopher C Butler are involved in RESCEU, an Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) of the European Union in which AstraZeneca, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Sanofi Pasteur, Janssen Pharmaceutica, and Novavax are involved. Christopher C Butler reports receiving advisory board fees from Roche Molecular Systems and grant support from Roche Molecular Diagnostics; Christopher C Butler was supported by funding from a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Protection Research Unit on Health Care Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, by the NIHR MedTech and In Vitro Diagnostics Co-Operative at Oxford NHS Foundation Trust, and by an NIHR Senior Investigator Award. Theo J Verheij is co-principal investigator of an NIHR-funded randomised controlled trial, and principal investigator in several studies funded by the Netherlands Organization of Health Research and Development. Alike W van der Velden reports receiving advisory board fees from Reckitt Benckiser. All authors, excluding Muireann de Paor are involved in Value-Dx, another IMI project in which Abbott, Accelerate, Becton Dickinson, BioMérieux, Bio-Rad Laboratories, and Berry Consultants are partners.

Discuss this article

Contribute and read comments about this article: bjgp.org/letters

  • Received March 25, 2020.
  • Revision requested March 31, 2020.
  • Accepted April 7, 2020.
  • ©The Authors
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This article is Open Access: CC BY 4.0 licence (http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/).

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Wang D,
    2. Hu B,
    3. Hu C,
    4. et al.
    Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus–infected pneumonia in Wuhan, ChinaJAMA20203231110611069
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Butler CC,
    2. van der Velden AW,
    3. Bongard E,
    4. et al.
    Oseltamivir plus usual care versus usual care for influenza-like illness in primary care: an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trialLancet2020395102174252
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. Bongard E,
    2. van der Velden AW,
    3. Cook J,
    4. et al.
    Antivirals for influenza-like illness? A randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost effectiveness in primary CarE (ALIC4E): the ALIC4E protocolBMJ Open201887e021032
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. EUR-Lex
    2012/506/EU: Commission Implementing Decision of 8 August 2012 amending Decision 2002/253/EC laying down case definitions for reporting communicable diseases to the Community network under Decision No 2119/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council2012eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32012D0506 (accessed 28 May 2020).
  5. 5.↵
    1. Ieven M,
    2. Coenen S,
    3. Loens K,
    4. et al.
    GRACE consortium. Aetiology of lower respiratory tract infection in adults in primary care: a prospective study in 11 European countriesClin Microbiol Infect2018241111581163
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    1. Jacobs B,
    2. Young NL,
    3. Dick PT,
    4. et al.
    Canadian Acute Respiratory Illness and Flu Scale (CARIFS): development of a valid measure for childhood respiratory infectionsJ Clin Epidemiol2000538793799
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Moustgaard H,
    2. Clayton GL,
    3. Jones HE,
    4. et al.
    Impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects in randomised clinical trials: meta-epidemiological studyBMJ2020368l6802
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Anand R,
    2. Norrie J,
    3. Bradley JM,
    4. et al.
    Fool’s gold? Why blinded trials are not always bestBMJ2020368l6228
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Ebell MH,
    2. Call M,
    3. Shinholser J
    Effectiveness of oseltamivir in adults: a meta-analysis of published and unpublished clinical trialsFam Pract2013302125133
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Dobson J,
    2. Whitley RJ,
    3. Pocock S,
    4. Monto AS
    Oseltamivir treatment for influenza in adults: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trialsLancet2015385997917291737
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.
    1. Jefferson T,
    2. Jones MA,
    3. Doshi P,
    4. et al.
    Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in healthy adults and childrenCochrane Database Syst Rev201420144CD008965doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008965.pub4
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. 12.↵
    1. Malosh RE,
    2. Martin ET,
    3. Heikkinen T,
    4. et al.
    Efficacy and safety of oseltamivir in children: systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trialsClin Infect Dis2018661014921500
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    1. Weimer K,
    2. Colloca L,
    3. Enck P
    Age and sex as moderators of the placebo response — an evaluation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses across medicineGerontology201561297108
    OpenUrlPubMed
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 70 (696)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 70, Issue 696
July 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Oseltamivir for coronavirus illness: post-hoc exploratory analysis of an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial in European primary care from 2016 to 2018
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
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, Christopher C Butler
British Journal of General Practice 2020; 70 (696): e444-e449. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp20X711941

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
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, Christopher C Butler
British Journal of General Practice 2020; 70 (696): e444-e449. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp20X711941
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHOD
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • coronavirus
  • COVID-19
  • Europe
  • oseltamivir
  • primary care
  • randomised controlled trial

More in this TOC Section

  • Academic performance of ethnic minority versus White doctors in the MRCGP assessment 2016-2021: cross sectional study
  • Diagnostic delays for breathlessness: a qualitative study in primary care to understand current care and inform future pathways
  • Physical activity for chronic back pain: qualitative interviews among patients and GPs
Show more Research

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242