ABSTRACT
Introduction Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy that affects the peripheral nervous system. The study aimed to describe the incidence of GBS in the world up to the year 2020. Methods A systematic review was conducted. Searches were done in four databases, PUBMED, EMBASE, EBSCO and Biblioteca virtual em Saude (BVS), and in grey literature and manual search in the reference lists of eligible studies. Results A total of 72 studies were included. The incidence of GBS among the cohort studies varied from 0.30 to 6.08 cases per 100.000 habitants and 0.42 to 6.58 cases per 100.000 person-years. Among the self-controlled studies, the risk incidence ranged from 0.072 to 1 case per 100.000 habitants and 1.73 to 4.30 cases per 100.000 person-years. Conclusions The reported incidence of GBS in the world among the studies included in the review is slightly higher than that reported in previous studies. The highest incidence rates were associated with public health events of international concern.
ABSTRACT
Resumo O objetivo deste artigo é avaliar a eficácia das máscaras faciais padrão tecido não tecido (TNT) para a prevenção de doenças respiratórias (MERS CoV, SARS-CoV e SARS-CoV-2) na população. Foi realizada busca nas bases de dados Medline, Embase, Cinahl, The Cochrane Library, Trip. Também busca complementar no Google Acadêmico, Rayyan e medRxiv. Não foram aplicados filtros relacionados a data, idioma ou status de publicação. Títulos e resumos foram rastreados e, posteriormente, textos completos foram avaliados. Foram incluídos três estudos: um ensaio clínico randomizado tipo cluster e duas revisões sistemáticas. O ensaio clínico indica benefício potencial de máscaras médicas para controle da fonte de infecção, para a doença respiratória clínica. Em uma das revisões sistemáticas, não foi possível estabelecer relação conclusiva entre uso da máscara e proteção contra infecção respiratória. Por fim, outra revisão sistemática demonstrou que máscaras são eficazes na prevenção da propagação de vírus respiratórios. As evidências apontam para benefício potencial das máscaras faciais padrão TNT. Para o cenário atual de pandemia por COVID 19, recomenda-se educação sobre uso adequado de máscaras, associado a medidas individuais de proteção. Objectives: to evaluate the effectiveness of non-woven face masks for the prevention of respiratory infections (MERS CoV, SARS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2) in the population. Methods: search in Medline, Embase, Cinahl, The Cochrane Library, Trip databases. Google Scholar, Rayyan and medRxiv were also consulted for complementary results. No filters related to date, language or publication status were applied. Titles and abstracts were screened, and later, full texts were evaluated. Results: three studies were included: a randomized cluster clinical trial and two systematic reviews. The clinical trial indicates a potential benefit of medical masks to control the source of clinical respiratory disease infection. In one of the systematic reviews, it was not possible to establish a conclusive relationship between the use of the mask and protection against respiratory infection. Finally, another systematic review indicated that masks are effective in preventing the spread of respiratory viruses. Conclusion: Evidence points to the potential benefit of standard non-woven face masks. For the current pandemic scenario of COVID-19, education on the appropriate use of masks associated with individual protection measures is recommended.
ABSTRACT
Resumo O objetivo deste trabalho foi avaliar efeitos de tratamentos medicamentosos para infecções por coronavírus. Revisão sistemática rápida com buscas nas bases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, BVS, Global Index Medicus, Medrix, bioRxiv, Clinicaltrials.gov e International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Foram incluídos 36 estudos avaliando alternativas medicamentosas contra SARS, SARS-CoV-2 e MERS. A maioria dos estudos incluídos foi conduzida na China com delineamento observacional para tratamento da COVID-19. Os tratamentos mais estudados foram antimaláricos e antivirais. Nos antimaláricos, a metanálise de dois estudos com 180 participantes não identificou benefício da hidroxicloroquina em relação à negativação da carga viral via reação em cadeia de polimerase em tempo real e o uso de antivirais comparado ao cuidado padrão foi similar em relação aos desfechos. As evidências científicas disponíveis são preliminares e de baixa qualidade metodológica, o que sugere cautela na interpretação dos dados. Pesquisas que avaliem a eficácia comparativa em ensaios clínicos randomizados, controlados, com tempo de acompanhamento adequado e com os métodos devidamente divulgados e sujeitos à revisão científica por pares são necessárias. Recomenda-se atualização periódica da presente revisão. This work aimed to evaluate the effects of drug therapies for coronavirus infections. Rapid systematic review with search in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, BVS, Global Index Medicus, Medrix, bioRxiv, Clinicaltrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases. Thirty-six studies evaluating alternative drugs against SARS, SARS-CoV-2 and MERS were included. Most of the included studies were conducted in China with an observational design for the treatment of COVID-19. The most studied treatments were with antimalarials and antivirals. In antimalarial, the meta-analysis of two studies with 180 participants did not identify the benefit of hydroxychloroquine concerning the negative viral load via real-time polymerase chain reaction, and the use of antivirals compared to standard care was similar regarding outcomes. The available scientific evidence is preliminary and of low methodological quality, which suggests caution when interpreting its results. Research that evaluates comparative efficacy in randomized, controlled clinical trials, with adequate follow-up time and with the methods properly disclosed and subject to scientific peer review is required. A periodic update of this review is recommended.
ABSTRACT
This work aimed to evaluate the effects of drug therapies for coronavirus infections. Rapid systematic review with search in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, BVS, Global Index Medicus, Medrix, bioRxiv, Clinicaltrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases. Thirty-six studies evaluating alternative drugs against SARS, SARS-CoV-2 and MERS were included. Most of the included studies were conducted in China with an observational design for the treatment of COVID-19. The most studied treatments were with antimalarials and antivirals. In antimalarial, the meta-analysis of two studies with 180 participants did not identify the benefit of hydroxychloroquine concerning the negative viral load via real-time polymerase chain reaction, and the use of antivirals compared to standard care was similar regarding outcomes. The available scientific evidence is preliminary and of low methodological quality, which suggests caution when interpreting its results. Research that evaluates comparative efficacy in randomized, controlled clinical trials, with adequate follow-up time and with the methods properly disclosed and subject to scientific peer review is required. A periodic update of this review is recommended.
Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/drug therapy , Antimalarials/administration & dosage , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Betacoronavirus/drug effects , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Humans , Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus/drug effects , Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus/isolation & purification , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus/drug effects , Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus/isolation & purification , SARS-CoV-2 , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/virology , COVID-19 Drug TreatmentABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: to evaluate the effectiveness of non-woven face masks for the prevention of respiratory infections (MERS CoV, SARS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2) in the population. METHODS: search in Medline, Embase, Cinahl, The Cochrane Library, Trip databases. Google Scholar, Rayyan and medRxiv were also consulted for complementary results. No filters related to date, language or publication status were applied. Titles and abstracts were screened, and later, full texts were evaluated. RESULTS: three studies were included: a randomized cluster clinical trial and two systematic reviews. The clinical trial indicates a potential benefit of medical masks to control the source of clinical respiratory disease infection. In one of the systematic reviews, it was not possible to establish a conclusive relationship between the use of the mask and protection against respiratory infection. Finally, another systematic review indicated that masks are effective in preventing the spread of respiratory viruses. CONCLUSION: Evidence points to the potential benefit of standard non-woven face masks. For the current pandemic scenario of COVID-19, education on the appropriate use of masks associated with individual protection measures is recommended.