No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
The use of over-the-counter medications to treat influenza symptoms may help mitigate the socioeconomic burden of the disease
Abstract
The increasing use of over-the-counter (OTC) medications to treat various conditions, including mild to moderate influenza symptoms, is one aspect of a growing movement toward medical self care. Moreover, as patients do not need to visit their physician, the use of OTC medications to treat influenza reduces the use of the healthcare system, which may help mitigate the socioeconomic burden of the disease. Pharmacists can enable responsible self care by providing information on OTC medications for patients with a low risk of influenza complications, and advising those with a high risk of complication to seek prompt medical attention.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
BACKGROUND:
Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are stockpiled and recommended by public health agencies for treating and preventing seasonal and pandemic influenza. They are used clinically worldwide.
OBJECTIVE:
To describe the potential benefits and harms of NIs for influenza in all age groups by reviewing all clinical study reports of published and unpublished randomised, placebo-controlled trials and regulatory comments.
METHODS
Search methods: We searched trial registries, electronic databases (to 22 July 2013) and regulatory archives, and corresponded with manufacturers to identify all trials. We also requested clinical study reports. We focused on the primary data sources of manufacturers but we checked that there were no published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from non-manufacturer sources by running electronic searches in the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Embase.com, PubMed (not MEDLINE), the Database of Reviews of Effects, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Economic Evaluations Database.
Selection criteria: Randomised, placebo-controlled trials on adults and children with confirmed or suspected exposure to naturally occurring influenza.
Data collection and analysis: We extracted clinical study reports and assessed risk of bias using purpose-built instruments. We analysed the effects of zanamivir and oseltamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms, influenza outcomes, complications, hospitalisations and adverse events in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. All trials were sponsored by the manufacturers.
MAIN RESULTS: We obtained 107 clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), GlaxoSmithKline and Roche. We accessed comments by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), EMA and Japanese regulator. We included 53 trials in Stage 1 (a judgement of appropriate study design) and 46 in Stage 2 (formal analysis), including 20 oseltamivir (9623 participants) and 26 zanamivir trials (14,628 participants). Inadequate reporting put most of the zanamivir studies and half of the oseltamivir studies at a high risk of selection bias. There were inadequate measures in place to protect 11 studies of oseltamivir from performance bias due to non-identical presentation of placebo. Attrition bias was high across the oseltamivir studies and there was also evidence of selective reporting for both the zanamivir and oseltamivir studies. The placebo interventions in both sets of trials may have contained active substances.
Time to first symptom alleviation. For the treatment of adults, oseltamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms by 16.8 hours (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.4 to 25.1 hours, P < 0.0001). This represents a reduction in the time to first alleviation of symptoms from 7 to 6.3 days. There was no effect in asthmatic children, but in otherwise healthy children there was (reduction by a mean difference of 29 hours, 95% CI 12 to 47 hours, P = 0.001). Zanamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults by 0.60 days (95% CI 0.39 to 0.81 days, P < 0.00001), equating to a reduction in the mean duration of symptoms from 6.6 to 6.0 days. The effect in children was not significant. In subgroup analysis we found no evidence of a difference in treatment effect for zanamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults in the influenza-infected and non-influenza-infected subgroups (P = 0.53).
Hospitalisations. Treatment of adults with oseltamivir had no significant effect on hospitalisations: risk difference (RD) 0.15% (95% CI -0.78 to 0.91). There was also no significant effect in children or in prophylaxis. Zanamivir hospitalisation data were unreported.
Serious influenza complications or those leading to study withdrawal. In adult treatment trials, oseltamivir did not significantly reduce those complications classified as serious or those which led to study withdrawal (RD 0.07%, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.44), nor in child treatment trials; neither did zanamivir in the treatment of adults or in prophylaxis. There were insufficient events to compare this outcome for oseltamivir in prophylaxis or zanamivir in the treatment of children.
Pneumonia. Oseltamivir significantly reduced self reported, investigator-mediated, unverified pneumonia (RD 1.00%, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.49); number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 100 (95% CI 67 to 451) in the treated population. The effect was not significant in the five trials that used a more detailed diagnostic form for pneumonia. There were no definitions of pneumonia (or other complications) in any trial. No oseltamivir treatment studies reported effects on radiologically confirmed pneumonia. There was no significant effect on unverified pneumonia in children. There was no significant effect of zanamivir on either self reported or radiologically confirmed pneumonia. In prophylaxis, zanamivir significantly reduced the risk of self reported, investigator-mediated, unverified pneumonia in adults (RD 0.32%, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.41); NNTB = 311 (95% CI 244 to 1086), but not oseltamivir.
Bronchitis, sinusitis and otitis media. Zanamivir significantly reduced the risk of bronchitis in adult treatment trials (RD 1.80%, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.80); NNTB = 56 (36 to 155), but not oseltamivir. Neither NI significantly reduced the risk of otitis media and sinusitis in both adults and children.
Harms of treatment. Oseltamivir in the treatment of adults increased the risk of nausea (RD 3.66%, 95% CI 0.90 to 7.39); number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) = 28 (95% CI 14 to 112) and vomiting (RD 4.56%, 95% CI 2.39 to 7.58); NNTH = 22 (14 to 42). The proportion of participants with four-fold increases in antibody titre was significantly lower in the treated group compared to the control group (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.97, I2 statistic = 0%) (5% absolute difference between arms). Oseltamivir significantly decreased the risk of diarrhoea (RD 2.33%, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.81); NNTB = 43 (95% CI 27 to 709) and cardiac events (RD 0.68%, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.0); NNTB = 148 (101 to 2509) compared to placebo during the on-treatment period. There was a dose-response effect on psychiatric events in the two oseltamivir "pivotal" treatment trials, WV15670 and WV15671, at 150 mg (standard dose) and 300 mg daily (high dose) (P = 0.038). In the treatment of children, oseltamivir induced vomiting (RD 5.34%, 95% CI 1.75 to 10.29); NNTH = 19 (95% CI 10 to 57). There was a significantly lower proportion of children on oseltamivir with a four-fold increase in antibodies (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00, I2 = 0%).
Prophylaxis. In prophylaxis trials, oseltamivir and zanamivir reduced the risk of symptomatic influenza in individuals (oseltamivir: RD 3.05% (95% CI 1.83 to 3.88); NNTB = 33 (26 to 55); zanamivir: RD 1.98% (95% CI 0.98 to 2.54); NNTB = 51 (40 to 103)) and in households (oseltamivir: RD 13.6% (95% CI 9.52 to 15.47); NNTB = 7 (6 to 11); zanamivir: RD 14.84% (95% CI 12.18 to 16.55); NNTB = 7 (7 to 9)). There was no significant effect on asymptomatic influenza (oseltamivir: RR 1.14 (95% CI 0.39 to 3.33); zanamivir: RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.24)). Non-influenza, influenza-like illness could not be assessed due to data not being fully reported. In oseltamivir prophylaxis studies, psychiatric adverse events were increased in the combined on- and off-treatment periods (RD 1.06%, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.76); NNTH = 94 (95% CI 36 to 1538) in the study treatment population. Oseltamivir increased the risk of headaches whilst on treatment (RD 3.15%, 95% CI 0.88 to 5.78); NNTH = 32 (95% CI 18 to 115), renal events whilst on treatment (RD 0.67%, 95% CI -2.93 to 0.01); NNTH = 150 (NNTH 35 to NNTB > 1000) and nausea whilst on treatment (RD 4.15%, 95% CI 0.86 to 9.51); NNTH = 25 (95% CI 11 to 116).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Oseltamivir and zanamivir have small, non-specific effects on reducing the time to alleviation of influenza symptoms in adults, but not in asthmatic children. Using either drug as prophylaxis reduces the risk of developing symptomatic influenza. Treatment trials with oseltamivir or zanamivir do not settle the question of whether the complications of influenza (such as pneumonia) are reduced, because of a lack of diagnostic definitions. The use of oseltamivir increases the risk of adverse effects, such as nausea, vomiting, psychiatric effects and renal events in adults and vomiting in children. The lower bioavailability may explain the lower toxicity of zanamivir compared to oseltamivir. The balance between benefits and harms should be considered when making decisions about use of both NIs for either the prophylaxis or treatment of influenza. The influenza virus-specific mechanism of action proposed by the producers does not fit the clinical evidence.
The substantial economic impact of influenza on society results primarily from lost work time and reduced productivity of patients and caregivers and increased use of medical resources. Additionally, since the 1980s, aging of the US population has meant rising influenza-related morbidity and mortality. According to the most current published data on this topic, in 2003 the total economic burden of influenza epidemics in the USA across all age groups was US102 billion in annual savings for the US healthcare system. A primary benefit to society of using OTC medicines to manage influenza is decreased use of the healthcare system, thereby mitigating the socioeconomic burden of influenza. Considering the stresses placed on the US healthcare system and the substantial productivity losses resulting from seasonal influenza as well as the growing self-care movement, OTC medicines will play an important role in the course of future influenza epidemics.
Controversy has arisen regarding the effectiveness of neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs), especially against influenza-related complications. A literature search was performed to critically assess the evidence collected by the available systematic reviews (SRs) regarding the benefits and disadvantages of NIs (oseltamivir, zanamivir) compared to placebos in healthy and at-risk individuals of all ages for prophylaxis and treatment of seasonal influenza. A SR was done using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Health Technology Assessment Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Medline (January 2006-July 2012). Two reviewers selected SRs based on randomized clinical trials, which were restricted to intention-to-treat results, and they assessed review (AMSTAR) and study quality indicators (GRADE). The SRs included (N = 9) were of high quality. The efficacy of NIs in prophylaxis ranged from 64% (16-85) to 92% (37-99); the absolute risk reduction ranged from 1.2% to 12.1% (GRADE moderate to low). Clinically relevant treatment benefits of NIs were small in healthy adults and children suffering from influenza-like illness (GRADE high to moderate). Oseltamivir reduced antibiotic usage in healthy adults according to one SR, but this was not confirmed by other reviews (GRADE low). Zanamivir showed a preventive effect on antibiotic usage in children (95% (77-99);GRADE moderate) and on the occurrence of bronchitis in at-risk individuals (59% (30-76);GRADE moderate). No evidence was available on the treatment benefits of NIs in elderly and at-risk groups and their effects on hospitalization and mortality. In oseltamivir trials, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea were significant side-effects. For zanamivir trials, no adverse effects have been reported. The combination of diagnostic uncertainty, the risk for virus strain resistance, possible side effects and financial cost outweigh the small benefits of oseltamivir or zanamivir for the prophylaxis and treatment of healthy individuals. No relevant benefits of these NIs on complications in at-risk individuals have been established.
Influenza epidemics and pandemics carry a heavy socioeconomic burden. Hospitalization and treatment are more often necessary in high-risk patients, such as the elderly. However, the impact of influenza is not negligible even in adults, mainly because of lost productivity. The World Health Organization estimates that seasonal influenza causes 250,000-500,000 deaths worldwide each year; however, mortality may be very high in pandemic periods. Many estimates of the costs of seasonal influenza have been made in various socioeconomic contexts. For instance, among the adult population in Italy, a cost of €940.39 per case has been estimated. In the US, the average annual influenza burden in 18-49-y-old adults without underlying medical conditions is judged to include approximately 32,000 hospitalizations and 680 deaths. Estimating the influenza burden is a useful aid to determining the best influenza vaccination strategy and preventive and clinical treatments.
To evaluate the clinical effectiveness (including adverse events) and cost-effectiveness of antivirals for the treatment of naturally acquired influenza for 'at-risk' and otherwise healthy populations.
Eleven electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Pascal, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Health Technology Assessment Database) were searched from October 2001 to November 2007. A supplementary search was undertaken in June 2008 for information relating to drug resistance during the 2007-8 influenza season.
Systematic reviews of the evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antivirals for the treatment of influenza were undertaken. Twenty-nine randomised controlled trials comparing antivirals with each other, placebo, or best symptomatic care were included in the evaluation of clinical effectiveness in patients presenting with an influenza-like illness (ILI). Primary outcomes were measures of symptom duration (median time to alleviation of symptoms and median time to return to normal activity). Incidence of complications, mortality, hospitalisations, antibiotic use (as a surrogate for complications) and adverse events was also assessed. In addition, an independent decision model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of antiviral treatment from the perspective of the UK NHS.
Amantadine was excluded at an early stage, owing to a lack of any new trials that met the inclusion criteria and the limitations of the existing evidence. The review therefore focused on the neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) oseltamivir and zanamivir, both of which were found to be effective in reducing symptom duration (zanamavir by 0.5-1.0 days and oseltamivir by 0.5-1.5 days). However, the effect sizes were often small and unlikely to be clinically significant in many cases, particularly in healthy adults. For the at-risk subgroups, effect sizes for differences in symptom duration were generally larger, and potentially more clinically significant, than those seen in healthy adults (median duration of symptoms reduced by 1-2 days with zanamivir and 0.50-0.75 days with oseltamivir). However, there was greater uncertainty around these results, with estimates often failing to reach statistical significance. The most consistent data and strongest evidence related to antibiotic use, with both zanamivir and oseltamivir resulting in statistically significant reductions in antibiotic use. In general, the estimates from the cost-effectiveness model were more favourable in at-risk populations (including adults and children with comorbid conditions and the elderly) compared with otherwise healthy populations. Zanamivir was the optimal NI treatment in each of the at-risk populations considered, and oseltamivir was optimal for healthy populations (both adults and children).
The clinical effectiveness data for population subgroups used to inform the multiparameter evidence synthesis and cost-effectiveness modelling were, in places, limited and this should be borne in mind when interpreting the findings of this review. Trials were often not designed to determine clinical effectiveness in population subgroups and hence, although the direction of effect was clear, estimates of differences in symptom duration tended to be subject to greater uncertainty in subgroups. Despite some concerns, the use of NIs in at-risk populations appeared to be a cost-effective approach for the treatment of influenza. Well-designed observational studies might also be considered to evaluate the clinical course of influenza in terms of complications, hospitalisation, mortality and quality of life, as well as the impact of NIs.
Guidelines for the treatment of persons with influenza virus infection were prepared by an Expert Panel of the Infectious
Diseases Society of America. The evidence-based guidelines encompass diagnostic issues, treatment and chemoprophylaxis with
antiviral medications, and issues related to institutional outbreak management for seasonal (interpandemic) influenza. They
are intended for use by physicians in all medical specialties with direct patient care, because influenza virus infection
is common in communities during influenza season and may be encountered by practitioners caring for a wide variety of patients.
To evaluate costs of inappropriate oral antibiotic prescribing in a managed care population with influenza.
This was a retrospective (January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2009) analysis of the US Impact National Benchmark Database. Patients with an influenza diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] code 487.xx) and continuous health plan enrollment for >12 months before and 1 month after the index influenza diagnosis date were included. We identified patients with an antibiotic prescription claim within 3 days before or 3 days after the index influenza diagnosis date. Patients were classified as having received appropriate antibiotic treatment if a secondary respiratory infection was observed within the 2-week postindex period or if there was a previous comorbid diagnosis of diabetes, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, acute myocardial infarction, or sickle cell anemia as identified by ICD-9-CM codes.
We identified 270,057 subjects with influenza (mean age, 31.6 years). Antibiotics were prescribed in 58,477 (21.65%) patients. Among patients receiving antibiotics, 99% did not have a follow-up diagnosis for a respiratory bacterial infection and 79% had neither a secondary infection nor evidence of a comorbidity (ie, received inappropriate antibiotic treatment). Based on a conservative annual seasonal influenza rate of 10%, we estimated that inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for influenza costs the United States approximately $211 million annually.
Empiric antibiotics were inappropriately prescribed in a high percentage of influenza patients. This represents a significant financial burden to the US healthcare system and may contribute to increased antibiotic resistance.
This report updates previous recommendations by CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of antiviral agents for the prevention and treatment of influenza (CDC. Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 2008;57[No. RR-7]).This report contains information on treatment and chemoprophylaxis of influenza virus infection and provides a summary of the effectiveness and safety of antiviral treatment medications. Highlights include recommendations for use of 1) early antiviral treatment of suspected or confirmed influenza among persons with severe influenza (e.g., those who have severe, complicated, or progressive illness or who require hospitalization); 2) early antiviral treatment of suspected or confirmed influenza among persons at higher risk for influenza complications; and 3) either oseltamivir or zanamivir for persons with influenza caused by 2009 H1N1 virus, influenza A (H3N2) virus, or influenza B virus or when the influenza virus type or influenza A virus subtype is unknown; 4) antiviral medications among children aged <1 year; 5) local influenza testing and influenza surveillance data, when available, to help guide treatment decisions; and 6) consideration of antiviral treatment for outpatients with confirmed or suspected influenza who do not have known risk factors for severe illness, if treatment can be initiated within 48 hours of illness onset. Additional information is available from CDC's influenza website at http://www.cdc.gov/flu, including any updates or supplements to these recommendations that might be required during the 2010-11 influenza season. Health-care providers should be alert to announcements of recommendation updates and should check the CDC influenza website periodically for additional information. Recommendations related to the use of vaccines for the prevention of influenza during the 2010-11 influenza season have been published previously (CDC. Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP], 2010. MMWR 2010;59[No. RR-8]).
Background:
Different types of influenza vaccines are currently produced worldwide. Vaccination of pregnant women is recommended internationally, while healthy adults are targeted in North America.
Objectives:
To identify, retrieve and assess all studies evaluating the effects (efficacy, effectiveness and harm) of vaccines against influenza in healthy adults, including pregnant women.
Search methods:
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2013) and EMBASE (1990 to May 2013).
Selection criteria:
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing influenza vaccines with placebo or no intervention in naturally occurring influenza in healthy individuals aged 16 to 65 years. We also included comparative studies assessing serious and rare harms.
Data collection and analysis:
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.
Main results:
We included 90 reports containing 116 data sets; among these 69 were clinical trials of over 70,000 people, 27 were comparative cohort studies (about eight million people) and 20 were case-control studies (nearly 25,000 people). We retrieved 23 reports of the effectiveness and safety of vaccine administration in pregnant women (about 1.6 million mother-child couples).The overall effectiveness of parenteral inactivated vaccine against influenza-like illness (ILI) is limited, corresponding to a number needed to vaccinate (NNV) of 40 (95% confidence interval (CI) 26 to 128). The overall efficacy of inactivated vaccines in preventing confirmed influenza has a NNV of 71 (95% CI 64 to 80). The difference between these two values depends on the different incidence of ILI and confirmed influenza among the study populations: 15.6% of unvaccinated participants versus 9.9% of vaccinated participants developed ILI symptoms, whilst only 2.4% and 1.1%, respectively, developed laboratory-confirmed influenza.No RCTs assessing vaccination in pregnant women were found. The only evidence available comes from observational studies with modest methodological quality. On this basis, vaccination shows very limited effects: NNV 92 (95% CI 63 to 201) against ILI in pregnant women and NNV 27 (95% CI 18 to 185) against laboratory-confirmed influenza in newborns from vaccinated women.Live aerosol vaccines have an overall effectiveness corresponding to a NNV 46 (95% CI 29 to 115).The performance of one-dose or two-dose whole virion pandemic vaccines was higher, showing a NNV of 16 (95% CI 14 to 20) against ILI and a NNV of 35 (95% CI 33 to 47) against influenza, while a limited impact on hospitalisation was found (NNV 94, 95% CI 70 to 1022).Vaccination had a modest effect on time off work and had no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates. Inactivated vaccines caused local harms. No evidence of association with serious adverse events was found, but the harms evidence base was limited.The overall risk of bias in the included trials is unclear because it was not possible to assess the real impact of bias.
Authors' conclusions:
Influenza vaccines have a very modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost in the general population, including pregnant women. No evidence of association between influenza vaccination and serious adverse events was found in the comparative studies considered in the review. This review includes 90 studies, 24 of which (26.7%) were funded totally or partially by industry. Out of the 48 RCTs, 17 were industry-funded (35.4%).
Background:
Three different types of influenza vaccines are currently produced world wide. None is traditionally targeted to healthy adults. Despite the publication of a large number of clinical trials, there is still substantial uncertainty about the clinical effectiveness of influenza vaccines and this has negative impact on the vaccines acceptance and uptake.
Objectives:
To identify, retrieve and assess all studies evaluating the effects of vaccines on influenza in healthy adults. To assess the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing cases of influenza in healthy adults. To estimate the frequency of adverse effects associated with influenza vaccination in healthy adults.
Search strategy:
MEDLINE was searched using the strategy of the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group. The bibliography of retrieved articles, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), and EMBASE (1990 to 1997) were also searched. Handsearch of the journal Vaccine from its first issue to the end of 1997 (Jefferson and Jefferson, 1996; Jefferson, 1998). We wrote to vaccine manufacturers and first or corresponding authors of studies in the review.
Selection criteria:
Any randomised or quasi-randomised studies comparing influenza vaccines in humans with placebo, control vaccines or no intervention, or comparing types, doses or schedules of influenza vaccine. Live, attenuated or killed vaccines or fractions thereof administered by any route, irrespective of antigenic configuration were considered. Only studies assessing protection from exposure to naturally occurring influenza in healthy individuals aged 14 to 60 (irrespective of influenza immune status) were considered.
Data collection and analysis:
Both clinically defined cases and serologically confirmed cases of influenza were considered as outcomes according to the authors' definitions. Time off work, complication and hospitalisation rates were considered, together with adverse effects. Vaccine schedules were analysed including one component matching the recommended vaccine (WHO or government recommendations) for the year of the study, and whether they matched the circulating viral subtypes.
Main results:
The recommended live aerosol vaccines reduced the number of cases of serologically confirmed influenza A by 48% (95% confidence interval 24% to 64%), whilst recommended inactivated parenteral vaccines had a vaccine efficacy of 68% (95% confidence interval 49% to 79%). The vaccines were less effective in reducing clinical influenza cases, with efficacies of 13% and 24% respectively. Use of the vaccine significantly reduced time off work, but only by 0.4 days for each influenza episode (95% confidence interval 0.1 to 0.8 days). Analysis of vaccines matching the circulating strain gave higher estimates of efficacy, whilst inclusion of all other vaccines reduced the efficacy.
Reviewer's conclusions:
Influenza vaccines are effective in reducing serologically confirmed cases of influenza A. However, they are not as effective in reducing cases of clinical influenza. The use of WHO recommended vaccines appears to enhance their effectiveness in practice.
Influenza (seasonal): fact sheet no. 211. Geneva: World Health Organization
- World Health Organization
Responsible self-medication: nursing perspectives. Geneva: International Council of Nurses
- S Richards
Over-the-counter medications: use in general and special populations, therapeutic errors, misuse, storage and disposal
- American College of Preventive Medicine
Over-the-counter medications: use in general and special populations, therapeutic errors, misuse, storage and disposal
- American College
- Preventive Medicine
WMA statement on self-medication
- World Medical Association
Antiviral agents for the treatment and chemoprophylaxis of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)
- A E Fiore
- A Fry
- D Shay
- AE Fiore