Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41552829›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025

A cost-effectiveness analysis of baloxavir marboxil versus oseltamivir for seasonal influenza treatment in China.

Fangyu Zheng, Yuekun Tang, Hongli Jiang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Fangyu Zheng *School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Yuekun Tang *School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Hongli JiangSchool of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of baloxavir marboxil versus oseltamivir for treating seasonal influenza among both high-risk and otherwise healthy populations in China from the healthcare system perspective. Methods: A decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two drugs. This model was integrated with a transmission dynamics model to assess the impact on controlling influenza spread. Model parameters for epidemiology, costs, and utilities were derived from real-world data on treatment costs from secondary and tertiary hospitals across China, the phase III clinical trial of baloxavir (CAPSTONE), and published literature. Results: Baloxavir was found to be a dominant strategy compared to oseltamivir in both populations, yielding lower costs and higher QALYs. For the high-risk population, baloxavir treatment would save $2.5468 per patient and gain an additional 0.00018 QALYs. In addition, for the otherwise healthy population, it would save $1.1278 per patient and gain an additional 0.00024 QALYs. One-way sensitivity analysis identified QALYs for influenza and hospitalization costs as the most influential parameters for the high-risk population, whereas the number of infections, ICU fatality rate, and hospitalization costs were key drivers for the otherwise healthy population. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of these findings. Conclusion: Baloxavir is a cost-effective alternative to oseltamivir for seasonal influenza treatment in China. It can improve patient outcomes and reduce influenza transmission at a societal level, offering value to the healthcare system.

Indexed as

antiviral agentsbaloxavir marboxilcost-effectivenessdecision treeseasonal influenza

Identifiers

PMID41552829
PMCPMC12808385

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.