Kinetics of Plasma Cytokines During Two Different Modalities of Extracorporeal Blood Purification in the Critically Ill Covid 19 Patients: A Cohort Study.

Background: In the absence of direct therapy for COVID-19, extracorporeal blood treatment (EBT) could represent an option for cytokine removal. Objective: This study aimed to describe and compare cytokine removal during intermittent haemodialysis (IHD) and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) in COVID-19 patients with Acute Kidney Injury (AKI). Methods: It was a cohort study that studied patients with COVID-19-related AKI according to KDIGO criteria and admitted at Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Blood samples were collected at the start and end of both IHD using high flux (HF) membranes (10 patients) and continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration (CVVHDF:10 patients) in two sessions for measuring 13 different plasma interleukins and calculating the cytokine removal rate. Results: There was no difference between the two groups regarding mechanical ventilation, vasoactive drug, age or prognostic scores. Patients treated by CRRT presented higher levels of IL-2 and IL-8 than patients treated by IHD at dialysis start. Cytokine removal ranged from 9% to 78%. Patients treated by CRRT presented higher cytokine removal for IL-2, IL-6 IL-8, IP-10 and TNF. The removal rates of IL-4, IL-10, IL-17A, IFN, MCP-1 and TGF-B1 were similar in two groups. After one session of CVVHDF (24 h), IL-2 and IL-1ß levels did not vary significantly, whereas IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-17A, TNF, IFN, IP-10, MCP-1, IL-12p70 and TGF-B1 decreased by 33.8-76%, and this decrease was maintained over the next 24 h. In IHD groups, IL-2, IL-6, TNF, IP-10 and IL-1ß levels did not decrease significantly whereas IL-4, IL-8, IL-10, IL-17A, IFN, MCP-1, IL-12p70 and TGF-B1 decreased by 21.8-72%; however, cytokine levels returned to their initial values after 24 h. Conclusion: Cytokine removal is lower in IHD using HF membranes than in CVVHDF, and in IHD the removal is transient and selective, which can be associated with mortality during cytokines storm-related COVID-19.

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).

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.

Use of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Studies in the literature regarding the use of remdesivir to treat COVID-19 patients have shown conflicting results. This study sought to answer questions related to the use of remdesivir for the treatment of patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19. METHODS: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis including phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies selected from various databases, comparing patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19 receiving remdesivir and controls. RESULTS: A total of 207 studies were retrieved, 9 of which met the eligibility criteria and were included in the study. The meta-analysis using RCTs alone showed no statistically significant differences regarding mortality or use of mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation between remdesivir and control groups, and the quality of evidence was moderate and low, respectively. The use of remdesivir increased the recovery rate by 6% (95% CI, 3-9); p = 0.004) and the clinical improvement rate by 7% (95% CI, 1-14); p = 0.02). Additionally, no significant differences in mortality were found between remdesivir and control groups when the meta-analysis used observational cohort studies alone (risk difference = -0.01 (95% CI, -0.02 to 0.01; p = 0.32), the quality of evidence being moderate, and the risk of adverse events was 4% ([95% CI, -0.08 to 0.01]; p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: The use of remdesivir for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 had no significant impact on clinically important outcomes.

Nebulized enriched heparin to treat no critical patients with Sars-Cov-2: Triple-blind clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral respiratory disease that spreads rapidly, reaching pandemic status, causing the collapse of numerous health systems, and a strong economic and social impact. The treatment so far has not been well established and there are several clinical trials testing known drugs that have antiviral activity, due to the urgency that the global situation imposes. Drugs with specific mechanisms of action can take years to be discovered, while vaccines may also take a long time to be widely distributed while new virus variants emerge. Thus, drug repositioning has been shown to be a good strategy for defining new therapeutic approaches. Studies of the effect of enriched heparin in the replication of severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro assays justify the advance for clinical tests. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A phase I/II triple-blind parallel clinical trial will be conducted. Fifty participants with radiological diagnosis of grade IIA pneumonia will be selected, which will be allocated in 2 arms. Participants allocated in Group 1 (placebo) will receive nebulized 0.9% saline. Participants allocated in Group 2 (intervention) will receive nebulized enriched heparin (2.5 mg/mL 0.9% saline). Both groups will receive the respective solutions on a 4/4 hour basis, for 7 days. The main outcomes of interest will be safety (absence of serious adverse events) and efficacy (measured by the viral load).Protocols will be filled on a daily basis, ranging from day 0 (diagnosis) until day 8.

Fast and reliable detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies based on surface plasmon resonance.

Researchers worldwide have been studying alternatives to detect SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), and accurate and timely diagnosis is crucial for controlling the outbreaks of the disease. Surface plasmon resonance (SPR) is an effective strategy based on antibodies, and it can be used for simple and fast detection of antibodies due to COVID-19 infection. Accordingly, this paper reports on the highly sensitive and specific detection of antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) and nucleocapsid (N) proteins in COVID-19 patients. In this methodology, spike (S) and nucleocapsid (N) proteins belonging to the coronavirus genome were immobilized on the surface of a gold sensor using self-assembled monolayers. Previously, serum from COVID-19 patients was screened by immunochromatography-based COVID-19 IgG rapid test and/or ELISA in house to determine the presence of IgG titers. Serum from COVID-19-positive patients presenting with IgG were added on the surface and, at the time they bound to proteins, they caused refractive changes in the SPR angle. The antibody detection limit was determined through successive injections into the SPR apparatus - these injections ranged from pure (without dilution) to 1 : 200 µL. The system has shown good reproducibility between runs after coated surface regeneration with 0.1 M glycine-HCl solution (pH 3.0); all experiments were tested in triplicate. The antibodies targeted both S and N fragments and gave a high assay sensitivity by identifying 19 out of 20 COVID-19-positive patients. Most importantly, the assay time took less than 10 min. The results of this study indicate that the proposed simple strategy demonstrates high sensitivity and time-saving in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 response antibodies.