Alertas sanitarias de productos médicos subestándares, falsificados y no registrados al inicio de la pandemia de COVID-19 en las Américas / Health alerts for substandard, falsified, and unregistered medical products at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Americas / Alertas de saúde para produtos médicos abaixo do padrão, falsificados e não registrados no início da pandemia de COVID-19 nas Américas

RESUMEN Objetivo. Identificar y analizar los incidentes de productos médicos subestándares, falsificados, no registrados y robados al inicio de la pandemia de COVID-19. Métodos. Búsqueda detallada en los sitios web de las autoridades reguladoras de las Américas. Identificación de los incidentes de medicamentos y dispositivos médicos (incluidos los de diagnóstico in vitro) subestándares falsificados, no registrados y robados. Se determinaron los tipos de productos, las etapas de la cadena de suministro en las que se detectaron y las medidas tomadas por las autoridades. Resultados. Se identificaron 1 273 incidentes en 15 países (1 087 productos subestándares, 44 falsificados, 123 no registrados y 19 robados). La mayor cantidad de incidentes corresponden a dispositivos médicos, desinfectantes y antisépticos. El punto en la cadena de suministro con mayor frecuencia de informes fue la adquisición a través de internet. Las medidas tomadas por las autoridades reguladoras corresponden en su mayoría a: alerta, prohibición de uso, prohibición de publicidad y fabricación, retiro del mercado y seguimiento de eventos adversos. Conclusiones. Se evidenció un número destacable de incidentes de productos médicos subestándares, falsificados, no registrados y robados al inicio de la pandemia por COVID-19. La escasez de insumos, la flexibilización en los requisitos regulatorios y el aumento de la demanda son factores que pueden favorecer el incremento del número de incidentes. Las autoridades reguladoras nacionales de referencia presentaron mayores frecuencias de detección de incidentes y de aplicación de medidas sanitarias. Se observó que se debe abordar el canal de venta por internet con alguna estrategia reguladora para garantizar la distribución segura de productos médicos.

ABSTRACT Objective. Identify and analyze incidents of substandard, falsified, unregistered, and stolen medical products at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. Detailed search of the websites of regulatory authorities in the Americas. Identification of incidents of substandard, falsified, unregistered, and stolen medicines and medical devices (including in vitro diagnostics). The types of products were determined, as were the stages in the supply chain where they were detected, and the actions taken by authorities. Results. A total of 1 273 incidents were identified in 15 countries (1 087 substandard, 44 falsified, 123 unregistered, and 19 stolen products). The largest number of incidents involved medical devices, disinfectants, and antiseptics. The most frequently reported point in the supply chain was online purchasing. The principal measures taken by the regulatory authorities were: alerts, prohibition of use, prohibition of advertising and manufacture, recall, and monitoring of adverse events. Conclusions. A substantial number of incidents involving substandard, falsified, unregistered, and stolen medical products at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic were identified. Shortages of supplies, easing of regulatory requirements, and increased demand are factors that may have led to an increase in the number of incidents. The national regulatory authorities of reference reported more frequent detection of incidents and more frequent application of health measures. A regulatory strategy is needed in order to address online sales and ensure the safe distribution of medical products.

RESUMO Objetivo. Identificar e analisar incidentes de produtos médicos abaixo do padrão, falsificados, não registrados e roubados no início da pandemia de COVID-19. Métodos. Foi realizada uma busca detalhada nos sites das autoridades reguladoras das Américas. Foram identificados incidentes envolvendo medicamentos e dispositivos médicos (incluindo para diagnóstico in vitro) abaixo do padrão, falsificados, não registrados e roubados. Foram determinados os tipos de produtos, os estágios da cadeia de abastecimento em que foram detectados e as medidas tomadas pelas autoridades. Resultados. Foram identificados 1 273 incidentes em 15 países (1 087 produtos abaixo do padrão, 44 falsificados, 123 não registrados e 19 roubados). O maior número de incidentes estava relacionado a dispositivos médicos, desinfetantes e antissépticos. O ponto na cadeia de abastecimento com a maior frequência de relatos foi a de aquisição pela internet. As medidas tomadas pelas autoridades reguladoras foram principalmente alertas, proibições de uso, proibições de publicidade e fabricação, recolhimento de produtos do mercado e monitoramento de eventos adversos. Conclusões. Houve um número significativo de incidentes envolvendo produtos médicos abaixo do padrão falsificados, não registrados e roubados no início da pandemia de COVID-19. A escassez de insumos, a flexibilização das exigências regulatórias e o aumento da demanda são fatores que podem levar a um maior número de incidentes. As autoridades reguladoras nacionais de referência informaram um aumento na frequência de detecção de incidentes e implementação de medidas sanitárias. O canal de vendas pela internet precisa ser abordado com alguma estratégia regulatória para garantir a distribuição segura de produtos médicos.

Brazilian guidelines for the treatment of outpatients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. A joint guideline of the Brazilian Association of Emergency Medicine (ABRAMEDE), Brazilian Medical Association (AMB), Brazilian Society of Angiology and Vascular Surgery (SBACV), Brazilian Society of Geriatrics and Gerontology (SBGG), Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI), Brazilian Society of Family and Community Medicine (SBFMC), and Brazilian Thoracic Society (SBPT)

ABSTRACT Background Several therapies have been used or proposed for the treatment of COVID-19, although their effectiveness and safety have not been properly evaluated. The purpose of this document is to provide recommendations to support decisions about the drug treatment of outpatients with COVID-19 in Brazil. Methods A panel consisting of experts from different clinical fields, representatives of the Brazilian Ministry of Health, and methodologists (37 members in total) was responsible for preparing these guidelines. A rapid guideline development method was used, based on the adoption and/or adaptation of recommendations from existing international guidelines combined with additional structured searches for primary studies and new recommendations whenever necessary (GRADE-ADOLOPMENT). The rating of quality of evidence and the drafting of recommendations followed the GRADE method. Results Ten technologies were evaluated, and 10 recommendations were prepared. Recommendations were made against the use of anticoagulants, azithromycin, budesonide, colchicine, corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine alone or combined with azithromycin, ivermectin, nitazoxanide, and convalescent plasma. It was not possible to make a recommendation regarding the use of monoclonal antibodies in outpatients, as their benefit is uncertain and their cost is high, with limitations of availability and implementation. Conclusion To date, few therapies have demonstrated effectiveness in the treatment of outpatients with COVID-19. Recommendations are restricted to what should not be used, in order to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and to promote resource savings by aboiding ineffective treatments.

Efectos del tratamiento con plasma de convaleciente con COVID-19 Revisión sistemática y metaanálisis / Effects of convalescent plasma treatment in patients with COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCCIÓN: Se ha sugerido que el tratamiento con plasma de convaleciente en la enfermedad por coronavirus (COVID-19) mejora la evolución clínica en los casos moderados a graves. Este estudio fue diseñado para evaluar los efectos de este tratamiento en comparación con el tratamiento estándar o placebo en la mortalidad, el ingreso a asistencia ventilatoria mecánica y otros desenlaces críticos en personas hospitalizados con COVID-19 moderada a grave. MÉTODOS: Se siguieron los lineamientos PRISMA para la realización de una revisión sistemática. Se realizó una búsqueda sistemática en la plataforma L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) de COVID-19 hasta el 15 de enero de 2021. Se incluyeron ensayos clínicos en los cuales se estudiaron personas con COVID-19 moderada, grave o crítica. La certeza de la evidencia se analizó mediante el enfoque de evaluación, desarrollo y evaluación de recomendaciones (GRADE, por su sigla en inglés). RESULTADOS: Se identificaron 10 ensayos controlados aleatorizados que incluyeron 11 854 pacientes, en los que se comparó el tratamiento con plasma de convaleciente y las medidas estándares de cuidado o placebo en pacientes con COVID-19. Estos no mostraron diferencias significativas sobre la mortalidad (riesgo relativo: 1,02; intervalo de confianza del 95%: 0,94-1,12). Podría producir un aumento marginal en el ingreso a ventilación mecánica y de los eventos adversos graves. DISCUSION: La evidencia actual muestra que el uso de plasma de convaleciente no tiene efecto en desenlaces críticos en pacientes con COVID-19 moderada o grave.

INTRODUCTION: It has been suggested that treatment with convalescent plasma in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) improves the clinical course in moderate to severe cases. This study was designed to evaluate the effects of this treatment compared to standard treatment or placebo on mortality, admission to mechanical ventilation, and other critical outcomes in people hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19. METHODS: The PRISMA guidelines were followed to carry out a systematic review. A systematic search was carried out on the L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19 until January 15, 2021. Clinical trials were included in which people with moderate, severe or critical COVID-19 were studied. The certainty of the evidence was analyzed using the recommendation evaluation, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: We identified 10 randomized controlled trials involving 11 854 patients in which convalescent plasma treatment and standard measures of care or placebo were compared in patients with COVID-19. These did not show significant differences on mortality (relative risk: 1.02; 95% confidence interval: 0.94-1.12). It could produce a marginal increase in admission to mechanical ventilation and serious adverse events. DISCUSSION: Current evidence shows that the use of convalescent plasma has no effect on critical outcomes in patients with moderate or severe COVID-19

Agentes potencialmente terapéuticos contra el SARS-CoV-2: revisión rápida de la evidencia

RESUMEN El Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación (IETSI) del Seguro Social de Salud (EsSalud) ha desarrollado siete informes breves mediante revisiones rápidas de evidencia sobre los agentes potencialmente terapéuticos contra el SARS-CoV-2 con la finalidad de brindar información actual y relevante para los decisores, clínicos, investigadores y la comunidad académica en el Perú. Los agentes terapéuticos evaluados incluyeron cloroquina/hidroxicloroquina, lopinavir/ritonavir, tocilizumab, oseltamivir, interferón, atazanavir y plasma anti-SARS-CoV-2. La identificación de evidencia incluyó la revisión de las bases electrónicas PubMed y Cochrane Library. Adicionalmente, se realizó una búsqueda manual en las páginas web de grupos dedicados a la investigación y educación en salud, así como, en las principales sociedades o instituciones especializadas, como la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) y los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC, por sus siglas en inglés). Asimismo, para disminuir el sesgo de publicación, se buscó en las páginas web www.clinicaltrials.gov y http://apps.who.int/trialsearch, para identificar ensayos clínicos en desarrollo o que no hayan sido publicados aún. Finalmente, se consideró extraer información con una estrategia de «bola de nieve¼ mediante la revisión de las listas de referencias de las revisiones sistemáticas, estudios primarios y revisiones narrativas que sean de relevancia. A la fecha de la última revisión (27 de marzo de 2020), no se dispone de evidencia para recomendar un medicamento específico para el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19. Se necesita de mayor evidencia, preferentemente ensayos clínicos de buena calidad, para la toma de decisiones terapéuticas contra el SARS-CoV-2.

ABSTRACT The Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación (IETSI) of the Seguro Social de Salud (EsSalud) has completed seven brief reports by means of rapid reviews of evidence regarding the potentially effective therapies against SARS-CoV-2 in order to provide current and relevant information for decision makers, clinicians, researchers and the academic community in Peru. The therapeutic agents evaluated were chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, tocilizumab, oseltamivir, interferon, atazanavir and anti SARS-CoV-2 serum. Evidence identification included the review of PubMed and Cochrane Library electronic databases. Additionally, manual search was carried out on websites from groups dedicated to research and education on health, as well as in the main specialized societies or institutions, such as, the World Health Organization (WHO) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Furthermore, in order to reduce publication bias, the websites: www.clinicaltrials.gov and http://apps.who.int/trialsearch were searched to identify in-progress or unpublished clinical trials. Finally, a "snowball" strategy was performed by reviewing the reference lists of the systematic reviews, primary studies and selected narrative reviews to identify relevant information. The latest review (March 27, 2020) showed that there is no evidence to recommend any medication for patients´ treatment with COVID-19. More evidence, preferably high-quality randomized clinical trials, is needed for decision-making against SARS-CoV-2.