Efficacy and Safety of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Patients under Mechanical Ventilation with COVID-19 and Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Health Technology Assessment.

We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients under mechanical ventilation with COVID-19 and severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). A systematic review of the literature published in PubMed, Cochrane Library and LILACS databases, was performed. A manual search was also conducted using the reference lists of the studies included in the full-text assessment, as well as a grey-literature search on Google. Additionally, websites of state institutions and organizations developing clinical practice guidelines and health technology assessments were reviewed. The ClinicalTrials.gov website was screened along with the websites of the International Clinical Trial Registry Platform and the National Registry of Health Research Projects of the Peruvian National Institute of Health. No restrictions were applied in terms of language, time, or country. A total of 13 documents were assessed, which included 7 clinical practice guidelines, 3 health technology assessments, 1 systematic review, 1 randomized clinical trial, and 1 observational study. A critical appraisal was conducted for each document. After this, we considered that the currently available evidence is insufficient for a conclusion supporting the use of ECMO in patients under mechanical ventilation with severe ARDS associated to COVID-19 in terms of mortality, safety, and quality of life.

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

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.

Chlorine dioxide and chlorine derivatives for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review. / Dióxido de cloro y derivados del cloro para prevenir o tratar la COVID-19: revisión sistemática.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of chlorine dioxide solution and chlorine derivatives used in the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: This review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) and follows the guidelines provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. A librarian developed and executed the search strategy; it was further reviewed by two of the authors and complemented by manual search. Randomized clinical trials, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, and case reports were included; in vitro or animal studies were excluded. Abstract and full-text screening according to pre-defined eligibility criteria were performed by two reviewers independently using web application Rayyan QCRI. Disagreements on study selection were resolved by a third reviewer. The systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020200641). RESULTS: Neither published nor pre-print studies evaluating the use of chlorine dioxide or derivatives on SARS-CoV-2 infection were identified. The only finding was an unpublished observational study registry which has no results released yet. CONCLUSIONS: To date, there are no scientific evidence to uphold the use of chlorine dioxide or derivatives as preventive or therapeutic agents against COVID-19.

OBJETIVOS: Realizar una revisión sistemática acerca de la efectividad y seguridad del uso de dióxido de cloro y derivados del cloro, en la prevención o el tratamiento de la COVID-19. MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Se siguieron las pautas internacionales de elaboración de revisiones sistemáticas de PRISMA y el Manual Cochrane para revisiones sistemáticas de intervenciones. La estrategia de búsqueda la desarrolló un bibliotecario y la revisaron dos de los autores. Se complementó la búsqueda electrónica con una búsqueda manual. Se incluyeron ensayos clínicos aleatorizados, estudios cuasiexperimentales, estudios de cohorte, estudios de casos y controles, estudios de corte transversal y reportes de casos; y se excluyeron estudios in vitro o realizados en animales. Dos revisores, de forma independiente, seleccionaron los estudios según los criterios de elegibilidad definidos, usando el aplicativo web Rayyan, en caso de discordancia se hizo partícipe a un tercer revisor. El protocolo de la revisión sistemática se registró en PROSPERO (CRD42020200641). RESULTADOS: No se identificó ningún estudio publicado ni en proceso de publicación que haya evaluado el uso del dióxido de cloro o derivados del cloro, administrado por vía inhalatoria, oral o parenteral en humanos, como agente preventivo o terapéutico de la COVID-19 o en infecciones por otros coronavirus. Solo se identificó el registro de un único estudio catalogado como observacional que hasta ahora no tiene resultados. CONCLUSIONES: A la fecha, no existe evidencia científica que apoye el uso del dióxido de cloro o derivados del cloro para prevenir o tratar la 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.

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

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.

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.