Through a Rapid Health Technology Assessment (RHTA), we evaluated the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of baloxavir in the treatment of influenza, providing the necessary scientific information and evidence-based basis for healthcare professionals and health insurance decision-makers in making rational selections. Through systematic searches of Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials database and the official website of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies, we collected systematic reviews (SR)/Meta-analysis, cost-effectiveness evaluations and HTA reports of baloxavir for influenza, with a search time frame of date of database establishment to July 31, 2022. We then performed data extraction, literature screening and quality evaluation on the literature that met our selection criteria, after which the results of the studies were pooled and qualitatively described for analysis. 10 studies were included, including 6 SR/Meta-analysis, three economics studies, and 1 HTA report. In terms of efficacy, baloxavir had an advantage over oseltamivir for all three types of influenza patients (otherwise healthy patients, high-risk patients, and patients are not separated into groups with and without underlying health conditions) concerning change in virus titer from baseline at 24 and 48 h; about otherwise healthy patients and high-risk patients, baloxavir had an advantage over peramivir; pertaining to high-risk patients, baloxavir had an advantage over laninamivir; the above differences between groups were all statistically significant. In terms of safety, in otherwise healthy patients and patients are not separated into groups with and without underlying health conditions, baloxavir significantly reduced the incidence of DRAEs and nausea compared with oseltamivir, as well as significantly reduced the incidence of DRAEs compared with laninamivir; in patients are not separated into groups with and without underlying health conditions, baloxavir significantly reduced the incidence of AEs and diarrhoea compared with oseltamivir; the differences between the above groups were all statistically significant. Economically, in Japanese adult influenza patients and high-risk populations, the Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) of baloxavir slightly triumphed over that of laninamivir (Δ = 0.000112 and 0.00209 QALY per 1 patient, respectively); moreover, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER: 2,231,260 and 68,855 yen/QALY, respectively) was below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold (5,000,000 yen/QALY); in Chinese adult influenza patients without underlying diseases and adult high-risk influenza patients, baloxavir had a higher QALY compared with oseltamivir (Δ = 0.000246 and 0.000186 respectively), however, their ICER (12,230 and 64,956 RMB/QALY) was above the local WTP threshold (10,000 RMB/QALY) and thus did not provide a cost-effectiveness advantage. Baloxavir had a favorable efficacy and safety profile compared to neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs), and the currently available evidence suggested that it had an economic advantage only in Japan.
Keywords: Rapid health technology assessment; baloxavir marboxil; effectiveness; efficacy; influenza; safety.