Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is a major public health problem in sub-Saharan Africa. The efficacy of iron fortification against IDA is uncertain in malaria-endemic settings. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a complementary food (CF) fortified with sodium iron EDTA (NaFeEDTA) plus either ferrous fumarate (FeFum) or ferric pyrophosphate (FePP) to combat IDA in preschool-age children in a highly malaria endemic region. This is a secondary analysis of a nine-month cluster-randomized controlled trial conducted in south-central Côte d’Ivoire. 378 children aged 12–36 months were randomly assigned to no food intervention (n = 125; control group), CF fortified with 2 mg NaFeEDTA plus 3.8 mg FeFum for six days/week (n = 126; FeFum group), and CF fortified with 2 mg NaFeEDTA and 3.8 mg FePP for six days/week (n = 127; FePP group). The outcome measures were hemoglobin (Hb), plasma ferritin (PF), iron deficiency (PF < 30 μg/L), and anemia (Hb < 11.0 g/dL). Data were analyzed with random-effect models and PF was adjusted for inflammation. The prevalence of Plasmodium falciparum infection and inflammation during the study were 44–66%, and 57–76%, respectively. There was a significant time by treatment interaction on IDA (p = 0.028) and a borderline significant time by treatment interaction on iron deficiency with or without anemia (p = 0.068). IDA prevalence sharply decreased in the FeFum (32.8% to 1.2%, p < 0.001) and FePP group (23.6% to 3.4%, p < 0.001). However, there was no significant time by treatment interaction on Hb or total anemia. These data indicate that, despite the high endemicity of malaria and elevated inflammation biomarkers (C-reactive protein or α-1-acid-glycoprotein), IDA was markedly reduced by provision of iron fortified CF to preschool-age children for 9 months, with no significant differences between a combination of NaFeEDTA with FeFum or NaFeEDTA with FePP. However, there was no overall effect on anemia, suggesting most of the anemia in this setting is not due to ID. This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01634945).

Iron deficiency (ID) and malaria co-exist in tropical regions and both contribute to high rates of anaemia in young children. It is unclear whether iron fortification combined with intermittent preventive treatment (IPT) of malaria would be an efficacious strategy for reducing anaemia in young children. A 9-month cluster-randomised, single-blinded, placebo-controlled intervention trial was carried out in children aged 12–36 months in south-central Côte d’Ivoire, an area of intense and perennial malaria transmission. The study groups were: group 1: normal diet and IPT-placebo (n = 125); group 2: consumption of porridge, an iron-fortified complementary food (CF) with optimised composition providing 2 mg iron as NaFeEDTA and 3.8 mg iron as ferrous fumarate 6 days per week (CF-FeFum) and IPT-placebo (n = 126); group 3: IPT of malaria at 3-month intervals, using sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and amodiaquine and no dietary intervention (n = 127); group 4: both CF-FeFum and IPT (n = 124); and group 5: consumption of porridge, an iron-fortified CF with the composition currently on the Ivorian market providing 2 mg iron as NaFeEDTA and 3.8 mg iron as ferric pyrophosphate 6 days per week (CF-FePP) and IPT-placebo (n = 127). The primary outcome was haemoglobin (Hb) concentration. Linear and logistic regression mixed-effect models were used for the comparison of the five study groups, and a 2 × 2 factorial analysis was used to assess treatment interactions of CF-FeFum and IPT (study groups 1–4). After 9 months, the Hb concentration increased in all groups to a similar extent with no statistically significant difference between groups. In the 2 × 2 factorial analysis after 9 months, no treatment interaction was found on Hb (P = 0.89). The adjusted differences in Hb were 0.24 g/dl (95 % CI −0.10 to 0.59; P = 0.16) in children receiving IPT and −0.08 g/dl (95 % CI −0.42 to 0.26; P = 0.65) in children receiving CF-FeFum. At baseline, anaemia (Hb <11.0 g/dl) was 82.1 %. After 9 months, IPT decreased the odds of anaemia (odds ratio [OR], 0.46 [95 % CI 0.23–0.91]; P = 0.023), whereas iron-fortified CF did not (OR, 0.85 [95 % CI 0.43–1.68]; P = 0.68), although ID (plasma ferritin <30 μg/l) was decreased markedly in children receiving iron fortified CF (OR, 0.19 [95 % CI 0.09–0.40]; P < 0.001). IPT alone only modestly decreased anaemia, but neither IPT nor iron fortified CF significantly improved Hb concentration after 9 months. Additionally, IPT did not augment the effect of the iron fortified CF. CF fortified with highly bioavailable iron improved iron status but not Hb concentration, despite three-monthly IPT of malaria. Thus, further research is necessary to develop effective combination strategies to prevent and treat anaemia in malaria endemic regions. Trial registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; identifier NCT01634945; registered on July 3, 2012.

Introduction Effective management of seasonal and pandemic influenza is a high priority internationally. Guidelines in many countries recommend antiviral treatment for older people and individuals with comorbidity at increased risk of complications. However, antivirals are not often prescribed in primary care in Europe, partly because its clinical and cost effectiveness has been insufficiently demonstrated by non-industry funded and pragmatic studies. Methods and analysis Antivirals for influenza-Like Illness? An rCt of Clinical and Cost effectiveness in primary CarE is a European multinational, multicentre, open-labelled, non-industry funded, pragmatic, adaptive-platform, randomised controlled trial. Initial trial arms will be best usual primary care and best usual primary care plus treatment with oseltamivir for 5 days. We aim to recruit at least 2500 participants ≥1 year presenting with influenza-like illness (ILI), with symptom duration ≤72 hours in primary care over three consecutive periods of confirmed high influenza incidence. Participant outcomes will be followed up to 28 days by diary and telephone. The primary objective is to determine whether adding antiviral treatment to best usual primary care is effective in reducing time to return to usual daily activity with fever, headache and muscle ache reduced to minor severity or less. Secondary objectives include estimating cost-effectiveness, benefits in subgroups according to age (64 years), severity of symptoms at presentation (low, medium and high), comorbidity (yes/no), duration of symptoms (≤48 hours/>48–72 hours), complications (hospital admission and pneumonia), use of additional prescribed medication including antibiotics, use of over-the-counter medicines and self-management of ILI symptoms. Ethics and dissemination Research ethics committee (REC) approval was granted by the NRES Committee South Central (Oxford B) and Clinical Trial Authority (CTA) approval by The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. All participating countries gained national REC and CTA approval as required. Dissemination of results will be through peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference presentations. Trial registration number ISRCTN27908921; Pre-results.

Antimicrobial resistance has become a serious worldwide public health problem and is associated with antibiotic overuses. Whether personalized prescription feedback to high antibiotic prescribers using routinely collected data can lower antibiotic use in the long run is unknown. We describe the design and rationale of a nationwide pragmatic randomized controlled trial enrolling 2900 primary care physicians in Switzerland with high antibiotic prescription rates based on national reimbursement claims data. About 1450 physicians receive quarterly postal and online antibiotic prescription feedback over 24 months allowing a comparison of the individual prescription rates with peers. Initially, they also receive evidence based treatment guidelines. The 1450 physicians in the control group receive no information. The primary outcome is the amount of antibiotics prescribed over a one year-period, measured as defined daily doses per 100 consultations. Other outcomes include the amount of antibiotics prescribed to specific age groups (65 years), to male and female patients, in addition to prescriptions of specific antibiotic groups. Further analyses address disease-specific quality indicators for outpatient antibiotic prescriptions, the acceptance of the intervention, and the impact on costs. This trial investigates whether continuous personalized prescription feedback on a health system level using routinely collected health data reduces antibiotic overuse. The feasibility and applicability of a web-based interface for communication with primary care physicians is further assessed. ClinTrials.gov NCT01773824 (Date registered: August 24, 2012).

Background and Objective Influenza-like illness (ILI) leads to a substantial disease burden every winter in Europe; however, oseltamivir is not frequently prescribed to ILI patients in the primary-care setting. An open-label, multi-country, multi-season, randomised controlled trial investigated the effectiveness of oseltamivir for treating ILI in 15 European countries. We aimed to evaluate whether patients presenting with ILI in primary care and being managed with the addition of oseltamivir to usual care had lower average direct and indirect costs compared to patients with usual care alone. Methods Resource use data were extracted from participants’ daily diaries. Itemised country-specific unit costs were collected through official tariffs, pharmacies or literature. Costs were converted to 2018 values. The null hypothesis was tested based on one-sided credible intervals (CrIs) obtained by bootstrapping. Base-case analysis estimated direct cost and productivity losses using itemised costed resource use and the human capital approach. Scenario analyses with self-reported spending rather than itemised costing were also performed. Results Patients receiving oseltamivir (N = 1306) reported fewer healthcare visits, medication uses, hospital attendances and paid-work hours lost than the other patients (N = 1298). Excluding the oseltamivir cost, the average direct costs were lower in patients treated with oseltamivir from all perspectives, but these differences were not statistically significant (perspective of patient: €17 [0–95% Crl: 16–19] vs. €24 [5–100% Crl: 18–29]; healthcare provider: €37 [28–67] vs. €44 [25–55]; healthcare payers: €54 [45–85] vs. €68 [45–81]; and society: €423 [399–478] vs. €451 [390–478]). Scenario and age-group analyses confirmed these findings, but with some between-country differences. Conclusion The average direct and indirect costs were consistently lower in patients treated with oseltamivir than in patients without from four perspectives (excluding the oseltamivir cost). However, these differences were not statistically significant.

Background: Oseltamivir is usually not often prescribed (or reimbursed) for non-high-risk patients consulting for influenza-like-illness (ILI) in primary care in Europe. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding oseltamivir to usual primary care in adults/adolescents (13 years +) and children with ILI during seasonal influenza epidemics, using data collected in an open-label, multi-season, randomised controlled trial of oseltamivir in 15 European countries.Methods: Direct and indirect cost estimates were based on patient reported resource use and official country-specific unit costs. Health-Related Quality of Life was assessed by EQ-5D questionnaires. Costs and quality adjusted life-years (QALY) were bootstrapped (N = 10,000) to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), from both the healthcare payers’ and the societal perspectives, with uncertainty expressed through probabilistic sensitivity analysis and expected value for perfect information (EVPI) analysis. Additionally, scenario (self-reported spending), comorbidities subgroup and country-specific analyses were performed.Results: The healthcare payers’ expected ICERs of oseltamivir were €22,459 per QALY gained in adults/adolescents and €13,001 in children. From the societal perspective, oseltamivir was cost-saving in adults/adolescents, but the ICER is €8,344 in children. Large uncertainties were observed in subgroups with comorbidities, especially for children. The expected ICERs and extent of decision uncertainty varied between countries (EVPI ranged €1–€35 per patient).Conclusion: Adding oseltamivir to primary usual care in Europe is likely to be cost-effective for treating adults/adolescents and children with ILI from the healthcare payers’ perspective (if willingness-to-pay per QALY gained > €22,459) and cost-saving in adults/adolescents from a societal perspective.