Effectiveness and safety of tocilizumab for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab is an anti-human interleukin 6 receptor monoclonal antibody that has been used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, there is no consensus on its efficacy for the treatment of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of tocilizumab for treating COVID-19. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic Review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and IBECS for RCTs published up to March 2021. Two authors selected studies and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence following Cochrane Recommendations. RESULTS: Eight RCTs with 6,139 participants were included. We were not able to find differences between using tocilizumab compared to standard care on mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.13; 8 trials; 5,950 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, hospitalized patients under tocilizumab plus standard care treatment seemed to present a significantly lower risk of needing mechanical ventilation (risk ratio = 0.78; 95% CI 0.64-0.94 moderate-certainty of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: To date, the best evidence available shows no difference between using tocilizumab plus standard care compared to standard care alone for reducing mortality in patients with COVID-19. However, as a finding with a practical implication, the use of tocilizumab in association to standard care probably reduces the risk of progressing to mechanical ventilation in those patients. REGISTRATION: osf.io/qe4fs.

Indications for accurate and appropriate use of personal protective equipment for healthcare professionals. A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The speed of the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has put enormous pressure on hospitals and other healthcare facilities. This, together with blockages in several countries, has hindered the availability and accessibility of the necessary personal protective equipment (PPE). OBJECTIVE: To identify, systematically evaluate and summarize the available scientific evidence on the efficacy, safety, safe use and reuse of PPE for healthcare professionals, for preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of studies analyzing products for disinfecting and enabling reuse of PPE for coronavirus within the evidence-based health program of a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: A systematic search of the relevant literature was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science and LILACS databases, for articles published up to November 30, 2020. RESULTS: Ten studies were selected. These analyzed the use of N95, surgical and cotton masks, face shields, flexible enclosures with plastic covers or polycarbonate intubation boxes and plastic curtains; and also PPE disinfection using several substances. CONCLUSION: Combined use of a face shield with a N95 mask proved to be superior to other associations for protecting healthcare workers. Some products are useful for disinfecting PPE, such as 70% ethanol, 0.1% sodium hypochlorite and a mixture of quaternary ammonium and H2O2, and hydrogen peroxide. Ultraviolet light and dry heat at 70 °C can be used to decontaminate N95 masks. REGISTRATION NUMBER: DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/4V5FD at the OPENSCIENCE Framework.

Insufficient evidence for vitamin D use in COVID-19: A rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D deficiency has been linked to the increased severity of numerous viral infections. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether vitamin D supplementation is safe and effective for the treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, LILACS and LOVE for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published up to 2 March evaluating the effects of vitamin D for the treatment of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Two authors selected the studies and analysed the data evidence following Cochrane Recommendations. RESULTS: We included three RCTs with a total of 385 participants. We found low certainty evidence indicating that hospitalised patients under calcifediol plus standard care (SC) treatment seem to present a significantly lower risk of being admitted to ICU but no difference in mortality. We found low to very low certainty evidence that the improvement in fibrinogen levels is slightly greater in mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic patients with COVID-19 that used cholecalciferol plus SC than in those treated with placebo plus SC (mean difference), and the patients who used cholecalciferol plus SC achieved more SARS-CoV-2 negativity, but not on d-dimer, c-reactive protein (CRP) or procalcitonin compared with the patients in the placebo plus SC group. We also found low to moderate certainty evidence that a single high dose of vitamin D does not seem to be effective for reducing mortality, length of hospital stay, ICU admissions and d-dimer or CRP levels when used in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: As a practical implication, the use of vitamin D associated with SC seems to provide some benefit to patients with COVID-19. However, the evidence is currently insufficient to support the routine use of vitamin D for the management of COVID-19, as its effectiveness seems to depend on the dosage, on the baseline vitamin D levels, and on the degree of COVID-19 severity.

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Navigating the rapidly growing body of scientific literature on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is challenging, and ongoing critical appraisal of this output is essential. We aimed to summarize and critically appraise systematic reviews of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in humans that were available at the beginning of the pandemic. METHODS: Nine databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Sciences, PDQ-Evidence, WHO's Global Research, LILACS, and Epistemonikos) were searched from December 1, 2019, to March 24, 2020. Systematic reviews analyzing primary studies of COVID-19 were included. Two authors independently undertook screening, selection, extraction (data on clinical symptoms, prevalence, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, diagnostic test assessment, laboratory, and radiological findings), and quality assessment (AMSTAR 2). A meta-analysis was performed of the prevalence of clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Eighteen systematic reviews were included; one was empty (did not identify any relevant study). Using AMSTAR 2, confidence in the results of all 18 reviews was rated as "critically low". Identified symptoms of COVID-19 were (range values of point estimates): fever (82-95%), cough with or without sputum (58-72%), dyspnea (26-59%), myalgia or muscle fatigue (29-51%), sore throat (10-13%), headache (8-12%) and gastrointestinal complaints (5-9%). Severe symptoms were more common in men. Elevated C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase, and slightly elevated aspartate and alanine aminotransferase, were commonly described. Thrombocytopenia and elevated levels of procalcitonin and cardiac troponin I were associated with severe disease. A frequent finding on chest imaging was uni- or bilateral multilobar ground-glass opacity. A single review investigated the impact of medication (chloroquine) but found no verifiable clinical data. All-cause mortality ranged from 0.3 to 13.9%. CONCLUSIONS: In this overview of systematic reviews, we analyzed evidence from the first 18 systematic reviews that were published after the emergence of COVID-19. However, confidence in the results of all reviews was "critically low". Thus, systematic reviews that were published early on in the pandemic were of questionable usefulness. Even during public health emergencies, studies and systematic reviews should adhere to established methodological standards.

COVID-19 and patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases undergoing pharmacological treatments: a rapid living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID) are at increased risk of infection. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether patients undergoing pharmacological treatment for IMID present higher risk of worse outcomes when diagnosed with COVID-19. DESIGN AND SETTING: Rapid systematic review conducted in the medical school of the Federal University of São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, SCOPUS, Web of Science, L·OVE, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO-ICTRP for studies evaluating patients diagnosed with COVID-19 who were undergoing pharmacological treatment for IMID. Two authors selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence, following the Cochrane recommendations. RESULTS: We identified 1,498 references, from which one cohort study was included. This compared patients with and without rheumatic diseases (RD) who all had been diagnosed with COVID-19. Those with RD seemed to have higher chances of hospitalization and mortality, but no statistical difference was detected between the groups: hospitalization: odds ratio (OR) 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.6 to 2.29; mortality rate: OR 1.53; 95% CI 0.33 to 7.11 (very low certainty of evidence). Patients with RD were three times more likely to require admission to intensive care units (ICUs), with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), than those without RD: OR 3.72; 95% CI 1.35 to 10.26 (for both outcomes; very low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing pharmacological treatment for IMID seem to present higher chances of requiring admission to ICUs, with IMV. Additional high-quality studies are needed to analyze the effects of different treatments for IMID.

Environmental cleaning to prevent COVID-19 infection. A rapid systematic review

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Faced with a pandemic, all healthcare actions need to reflect best practices, in order to avoid high transmissibility, complications and even hospitalizations. For hospital environments, the products recommended and authorized by regulatory institutions for environmental cleaning and disinfection need to be highly effective. OBJECTIVE: To identify, systematically evaluate and summarize the best available scientific evidence on environmental cleaning to prevent COVID-19 infection. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of studies analyzing cleaning products that inactivate coronavirus, conducted within the evidence-based health program of a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: A systematic search of the relevant literature was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and LILACS databases, for articles published up to May 27, 2020, relating to studies evaluating cleaning products that inactivate coronavirus in the environment. RESULTS: Seven studies were selected. These analyzed use of 70% alcohol, detergent, detergent containing iodine, household bleach, sodium hypochlorite, hydrogen peroxide, chlorine dioxide, glutaraldehyde, ultraviolet irradiation and plasma air purifier. The effectiveness of treating sewage with sodium hypochlorite and chlorine dioxide was also evaluated. CONCLUSION: Disinfection of environments, especially those in ordinary use, such as bathrooms, needs to be done constantly. Viral inactivation was achieved using chlorine-based disinfectants, alcohol, detergents, glutaraldehyde, iodine-containing detergents, hydrogen peroxide compounds and household bleaches. Alcohol showed efficient immediate activity. In sewage, sodium hypochlorite had better action than chlorine dioxide. REGISTRATION NUMBER: DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/YC5P4 in the Open Science Framework.

COVID-19 and patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases undergoing pharmacological treatments: a rapid living systematic review

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID) are at increased risk of infection. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether patients undergoing pharmacological treatment for IMID present higher risk of worse outcomes when diagnosed with COVID-19. DESIGN AND SETTING: Rapid systematic review conducted in the medical school of the Federal University of São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, SCOPUS, Web of Science, L·OVE, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO-ICTRP for studies evaluating patients diagnosed with COVID-19 who were undergoing pharmacological treatment for IMID. Two authors selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence, following the Cochrane recommendations. RESULTS: We identified 1,498 references, from which one cohort study was included. This compared patients with and without rheumatic diseases (RD) who all had been diagnosed with COVID-19. Those with RD seemed to have higher chances of hospitalization and mortality, but no statistical difference was detected between the groups: hospitalization: odds ratio (OR) 1.17;95% confidence interval (CI) 0.6 to 2.29;mortality rate: OR 1.53;95% CI 0.33 to 7.11 (very low certainty of evidence). Patients with RD were three times more likely to require admission to intensive care units (ICUs), with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), than those without RD: OR 3.72;95% CI 1.35 to 10.26 (for both outcomes;very low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing pharmacological treatment for IMID seem to present higher chances of requiring admission to ICUs, with IMV. Additional high-quality studies are needed to analyze the effects of different treatments for IMID.

SARS-CoV-2 and arbovirus infection: a rapid systematic review

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: The numbers of cases of arboviral diseases have increased in tropical and subtropical regions while the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic overwhelms healthcare systems worldwide. The clinical manifestations of arboviral diseases, especially dengue fever, can be very similar to COVID-19, and misdiagnoses are still a reality. In the meantime, outcomes for patients and healthcare systems in situations of possible syndemic have not yet been clarified. OBJECTIVE: We set out to conduct a systematic review to understand and summarize the evidence relating to clinical manifestations, disease severity and prognoses among patients coinfected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and arboviruses. METHODS: We conducted a rapid systematic review with meta-analysis, on prospective and retrospective cohorts, case-control studies and case series of patients with confirmed diagnoses of SARS-CoV-2 and arboviral infection. We followed the Cochrane Handbook recommendations. We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Scopus and Web of Science to identify published, ongoing and unpublished studies. We planned to extract data and assess the risk of bias and the certainty of evidence of the studies included, using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment. RESULTS: We were able to retrieve 2,407 citations using the search strategy, but none of the studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. CONCLUSION: The clinical presentations, disease severity and prognoses of patients coinfected with SARS-CoV-2 and arboviruses remain unclear. Further prospective studies are necessary in order to provide useful information for clinical decision-making processes. Protocol registration number in the PROSPERO database: CRD42020183460

Clinical and socioeconomic characteristics of older adults with COVID-19: A protocol for a rapid systematic review.

The aim of this rapid systematic review is to analyze the prevalence of clinical, socioeconomic, and demographic characteristics, laboratory and imaging findings, diagnostic tests, and treatment information of older adults with COVID-19. To conduct this systematic review, the Cochrane Handbook recommendations will be followed. Patients aged 60 years or older with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection will be included. A comprehensive literature search will be performed in the following databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Spanish Bibliographic Index on Health Sciences (IBECS) and Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE platform. No language restrictions will be applied. To assess the methodological quality of the included studies and the certainty of the evidence, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be used. The meta-analysis will be performed using R software. We believe this rapid systematic review will be able to summarize the currently available evidence on clinical, socioeconomic characteristics, and management of COVID-19 in older adults. Therefore, it will help implement adequate strategies to fight the pandemic and assist in understanding the clinical profile of older patients with COVID-19, providing data with due scientific support upon which to base future choices of procedures and interventions.

Clinical and socioeconomic characteristics of older adults with COVID-19: A protocol for a rapid systematic review

SUMMARY The aim of this rapid systematic review is to analyze the prevalence of clinical, socioeconomic, and demographic characteristics, laboratory and imaging findings, diagnostic tests, and treatment information of older adults with COVID-19. To conduct this systematic review, the Cochrane Handbook recommendations will be followed. Patients aged 60 years or older with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection will be included. A comprehensive literature search will be performed in the following databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Spanish Bibliographic Index on Health Sciences (IBECS) and Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE platform. No language restrictions will be applied. To assess the methodological quality of the included studies and the certainty of the evidence, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be used. The meta-analysis will be performed using R software. We believe this rapid systematic review will be able to summarize the currently available evidence on clinical, socioeconomic characteristics, and management of COVID-19 in older adults. Therefore, it will help implement adequate strategies to fight the pandemic and assist in understanding the clinical profile of older patients with COVID-19, providing data with due scientific support upon which to base future choices of procedures and interventions. RESUMO O objetivo desta rápida revisão sistemática é analisar a prevalência de características clínicas, socioeconômicas e demográficas, achados laboratoriais e de imagem, testes de diagnóstico e informações de tratamento de idosos com COVID-19. Para conduzir esta revisão sistemática, serão seguidas as recomendações do Manual Cochrane. Pacientes com 60 anos ou mais com diagnóstico confirmado de infecção por Sars-CoV-2 serão incluídos. Uma pesquisa bibliográfica abrangente será realizada nas seguintes bases de dados: Medline via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central), Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (Lilacs), Índice Bibliográfico Espanhol em Ciências da Saúde (Ibecs) e Epistemonikos Plataforma COVID-19 L · OVE. Nenhuma restrição de idioma será aplicada. Para avaliar a qualidade metodológica e a certeza das evidências dos estudos incluídos, serão utilizadas a Escala Newcastle-Ottawa e a abordagem Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (Grade). A meta-análise será realizada no software R. Acreditamos que esta revisão sistemática rápida será capaz de resumir as evidências atualmente disponíveis sobre as características clínicas, socioeconômicas e sobre o manejo de idosos com COVID-19. Portanto, ajudará a implementar estratégias adequadas para combater a pandemia e ajudará a entender o perfil clínico de pacientes idosos com COVID-19, fornecendo dados com o devido apoio científico sobre o qual basear futuras escolhas de procedimentos e intervenções.

Evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews for controlling the dissemination of COVID-19 infection. A narrative review

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: COVID-19 infection has high transmissibility and several measures have been adopted for controlling its dissemination. OBJECTIVE: To identify and summarize the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) regarding measures for controlling the dissemination of COVID-19 infection. DESIGN AND SETTING: This review of Cochrane SRs was carried out in the Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery and in the Division of Emergency Medicine and Evidence-Based Medicine of Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Brazil. METHODS: A comprehensive search in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews retrieved all Cochrane SRs directly related to measures for controlling COVID-19 dissemination. The main characteristics and results of all the SRs included were summarized and discussed. RESULTS: Three Cochrane SRs were included in the qualitative synthesis. These evaluated population-based and individual measures for controlling the dissemination of COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Low-certainty evidence shows that quarantine for people exposed to confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases prevented 44% to 81% of incident cases and 31% to 63% of deaths, compared with situations of no measures. Moreover, the sooner the quarantine measures were implemented, the greater the cost savings were. High-confidence evidence showed that clear communication about infection control and prevention guidelines was vital for successful implementation. Low-certainty evidence showed that healthcare professionals with long gowns were less exposed to contamination than were those using coveralls. In addition, coveralls were more difficult to doff. Further SRs on controlling the dissemination of COVID-19 infection are desirable.

Reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction versus chest computed tomography for detecting early symptoms of COVID-19. A diagnostic accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: A positive real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS CoV-2, from nasopharyngeal swabs, is the current gold standard diagnostic test for this virus and has sensitivity of 60-70%. Some studies have demonstrated a significant number of false-negative RT-PCR tests while displaying significant tomographic findings, in the early days of symptoms of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To compare accuracy between RT-PCR and computed tomography (CT) for detecting COVID-19 in the first week of its symptoms during the pandemic. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of comparative studies of diagnostic accuracy within the Evidence-based Health Program of a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: A systematic search of the relevant literature was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and LILACS databases, for articles published up to June 6, 2020, relating to studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of RT-PCR and chest CT for COVID-19 diagnoses. The QUADAS 2 tool was used for methodological quality evaluation. RESULTS: In total, 1204 patients with COVID-19 were evaluated;1045 had tomographic findings while 755 showed positive RT-PCR for COVID-19. RT-PCR demonstrated 81.4% sensitivity, 100% specificity and 92.3% accuracy. Chest CT demonstrated 95.3% sensitivity, 43.8% specificity and 63.3% accuracy. CONCLUSION: The high sensitivity and detection rates shown by CT demonstrate that this technique has a high degree of importance in the early stages of the disease. During an outbreak, the higher prevalence of the condition increases the positive predictive value of CT. REGISTRATION NUMBER: DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/UNGHA in the Open Science Framework.

Environmental cleaning to prevent COVID-19 infection. A rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Faced with a pandemic, all healthcare actions need to reflect best practices, in order to avoid high transmissibility, complications and even hospitalizations. For hospital environments, the products recommended and authorized by regulatory institutions for environmental cleaning and disinfection need to be highly effective. OBJECTIVE: To identify, systematically evaluate and summarize the best available scientific evidence on environmental cleaning to prevent COVID-19 infection. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of studies analyzing cleaning products that inactivate coronavirus, conducted within the evidence-based health program of a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: A systematic search of the relevant literature was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and LILACS databases, for articles published up to May 27, 2020, relating to studies evaluating cleaning products that inactivate coronavirus in the environment. RESULTS: Seven studies were selected. These analyzed use of 70% alcohol, detergent, detergent containing iodine, household bleach, sodium hypochlorite, hydrogen peroxide, chlorine dioxide, glutaraldehyde, ultraviolet irradiation and plasma air purifier. The effectiveness of treating sewage with sodium hypochlorite and chlorine dioxide was also evaluated. CONCLUSION: Disinfection of environments, especially those in ordinary use, such as bathrooms, needs to be done constantly. Viral inactivation was achieved using chlorine-based disinfectants, alcohol, detergents, glutaraldehyde, iodine-containing detergents, hydrogen peroxide compounds and household bleaches. Alcohol showed efficient immediate activity. In sewage, sodium hypochlorite had better action than chlorine dioxide. REGISTRATION NUMBER: DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/YC5P4 in the Open Science Framework.

SARS-CoV-2 and arbovirus infection: a rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The numbers of cases of arboviral diseases have increased in tropical and subtropical regions while the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic overwhelms healthcare systems worldwide. The clinical manifestations of arboviral diseases, especially dengue fever, can be very similar to COVID-19, and misdiagnoses are still a reality. In the meantime, outcomes for patients and healthcare systems in situations of possible syndemic have not yet been clarified. OBJECTIVE: We set out to conduct a systematic review to understand and summarize the evidence relating to clinical manifestations, disease severity and prognoses among patients coinfected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and arboviruses. METHODS: We conducted a rapid systematic review with meta-analysis, on prospective and retrospective cohorts, case-control studies and case series of patients with confirmed diagnoses of SARS-CoV-2 and arboviral infection. We followed the Cochrane Handbook recommendations. We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Scopus and Web of Science to identify published, ongoing and unpublished studies. We planned to extract data and assess the risk of bias and the certainty of evidence of the studies included, using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment. RESULTS: We were able to retrieve 2,407 citations using the search strategy, but none of the studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. CONCLUSION: The clinical presentations, disease severity and prognoses of patients coinfected with SARS-CoV-2 and arboviruses remain unclear. Further prospective studies are necessary in order to provide useful information for clinical decision-making processes. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER IN THE PROSPERO DATABASE: CRD42020183460.

Intervenção com cloroquina/ hidroxicloroquina com ou sem azitromicina para COVID-19 (SARS-Cov 2): sinopse baseada em evidências

Contexto: A COVID-19 é uma doença causada por um coronavírus recentemente descrita e associada à síndrome da angústia respiratória severa (SARS). Atualmente tem impacto grave na saúde da população e na economia global. Esforços têm ocorrido na tentativa de um tratamento eficaz, sendo a cloroquina uma opção em foco. Objetivo: Avaliar as evidências na literatura relativas ao uso de cloroquina/hidroxicloroquina, associada ou não à azitromicina, para tratamento de casos graves de COVID-19. Desenho de estudo: Trata-se de sinopse de evidências. Métodos: Procedeu-se à busca em cinco bases eletrônicas de dados: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2020), PubMed (1966-2020), EMBASE (1974-2020), Scopus (2020) e Web of Science (2020), além do megabuscador de evidências Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) database (2020) e pesquisa livre na internet. Não houve restrição geográfica e de idioma, sendo utilizados descritores e termos do DeCS (Descritores em Ciências da Saúde). O método de síntese envolveu a combinação de estudos semelhantes em uma revisão narrativa. Resultados: Foram identificadas 332 citações e seis estudos foram incluídos. Há poucos ensaios clínicos concluídos e alguns guidelines publicados. Discussão: A evidência é extremamente baixa e não permite responder à questão com os estudos atuais, sendo recomendada a realização de novos ensaios clínicos de qualidade. Conclusões: Não há suporte com bom nível de evidência atualmente na literatura para uso da cloroquina/hidroxicloroquina, com ou sem azitromicina, no tratamento da pneumonia por COVID-19.

Clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics and outcomes of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection in humans: A systematic review and series of meta-analyses.

New evidence on the COVID-19 pandemic is being published daily. Ongoing high-quality assessment of this literature is therefore needed to enable clinical practice to be evidence-based. This review builds on a previous scoping review and aimed to identify associations between disease severity and various clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Scopus and LILACS for studies published between January 1, 2019 and March 22, 2020. Clinical studies including ≥10 patients with confirmed COVID-19 of any study design were eligible. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. A quality effects model was used for the meta-analyses. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression identified sources of heterogeneity. For hospitalized patients, studies were ordered by overall disease severity of each population and this order was used as the modifier variable in meta-regression. Overall, 86 studies (n = 91,621) contributed data to the meta-analyses. Severe disease was strongly associated with fever, cough, dyspnea, pneumonia, any computed tomography findings, any ground glass opacity, lymphocytopenia, elevated C-reactive protein, elevated alanine aminotransferase, elevated aspartate aminotransferase, older age and male sex. These variables typically increased in prevalence by 30-73% from mild/early disease through to moderate/severe disease. Among hospitalized patients, 30-78% of heterogeneity was explained by severity of disease. Elevated white blood cell count was strongly associated with more severe disease among moderate/severe hospitalized patients. Elevated lymphocytes, low platelets, interleukin-6, erythrocyte sedimentation rate and D-dimers showed potential associations, while fatigue, gastrointestinal symptoms, consolidation and septal thickening showed non-linear association patterns. Headache and sore throat were associated with the presence of disease, but not with more severe disease. In COVID-19, more severe disease is strongly associated with several clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics. Symptoms and other variables in early/mild disease appear non-specific and highly heterogeneous. Clinical Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020170623.

Reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction versus chest computed tomography for detecting early symptoms of COVID-19. A diagnostic accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A positive real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS CoV-2, from nasopharyngeal swabs, is the current gold standard diagnostic test for this virus and has sensitivity of 60-70%. Some studies have demonstrated a significant number of false-negative RT-PCR tests while displaying significant tomographic findings, in the early days of symptoms of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To compare accuracy between RT-PCR and computed tomography (CT) for detecting COVID-19 in the first week of its symptoms during the pandemic. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of comparative studies of diagnostic accuracy within the Evidence-based Health Program of a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: A systematic search of the relevant literature was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and LILACS databases, for articles published up to June 6, 2020, relating to studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of RT-PCR and chest CT for COVID-19 diagnoses. The QUADAS 2 tool was used for methodological quality evaluation. RESULTS: In total, 1204 patients with COVID-19 were evaluated; 1045 had tomographic findings while 755 showed positive RT-PCR for COVID-19. RT-PCR demonstrated 81.4% sensitivity, 100% specificity and 92.3% accuracy. Chest CT demonstrated 95.3% sensitivity, 43.8% specificity and 63.3% accuracy. CONCLUSION: The high sensitivity and detection rates shown by CT demonstrate that this technique has a high degree of importance in the early stages of the disease. During an outbreak, the higher prevalence of the condition increases the positive predictive value of CT. REGISTRATION NUMBER: DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/UNGHA in the Open Science Framework.