The respiratory oxygenation index for identifying the risk of orotracheal intubation in COVID-19 patients receiving high-flow nasal cannula oxygen.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the respiratory oxygenation index (ROX index) measured after the start of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy can help identify the need for intubation in patients with acute respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019. METHODS: This retrospective, observational, multicenter study was conducted at the intensive care units of six Brazilian hospitals from March to December 2020. The primary outcome was the need for intubation up to 7 days after starting the high-flow nasal cannula. RESULTS: A total of 444 patients were included in the study, and 261 (58.7%) were subjected to intubation. An analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) showed that the ability to discriminate between successful and failed high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy within 7 days was greater for the ROX index measured at 24 hours (AUROC 0.80; 95%CI 0.76 - 0.84). The median interval between high-flow nasal cannula initiation and intubation was 24 hours (24 - 72), and the most accurate predictor of intubation obtained before 24 hours was the ROX index measured at 12 hours (AUROC 0.75; 95%CI 0.70 - 0.79). Kaplan-Meier curves revealed a greater probability of intubation within 7 days in patients with a ROX index ≤ 5.54 at 12 hours (hazard ratio 3.07; 95%CI 2.24 - 4.20) and ≤ 5.96 at 24 hours (hazard ratio 5.15; 95%CI 3.65 - 7.27). CONCLUSION: The ROX index can aid in the early identification of patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 who will progress to the failure of high-flow nasal cannula supportive therapy and the need for intubation.

Incidence of venous thromboembolism and bleeding in patients with malignant central nervous system neoplasm: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Central nervous system (CNS) malignant neoplasms may lead to venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding, which result in rehospitalization, morbidity and mortality. We aimed to assess the incidence of VTE and bleeding in this population. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42023423949) were based on a standardized search of PubMed, Virtual Health Library and Cochrane (n = 1653) in July 2023. After duplicate removal, data screening and collection were conducted by independent reviewers. The combined rates and 95% confidence intervals for the incidence of VTE and bleeding were calculated using the random effects model with double arcsine transformation. Subgroup analyses were performed based on sex, age, income, and type of tumor. Heterogeneity was calculated using Cochran's Q test and I2 statistics. Egger's test and funnel graphs were used to assess publication bias. RESULTS: Only 36 studies were included, mainly retrospective cohorts (n = 30, 83.3%) from North America (n = 20). Most studies included were published in high-income countries. The sample size of studies varied between 34 and 21,384 adult patients, mostly based on gliomas (n = 30,045). For overall malignant primary CNS neoplasm, the pooled incidence was 13.68% (95%CI 9.79; 18.79) and 11.60% (95%CI 6.16; 18.41) for VTE and bleeding, respectively. The subgroup with elderly people aged 60 or over had the highest incidence of VTE (32.27% - 95%CI 14.40;53.31). The studies presented few biases, being mostly high quality. Despite some variability among the studies, we observed consistent results by performing sensitivity analysis, which highlight the robustness of our findings. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed variability in the pooled incidence for both overall events and subgroup analyses. It was highlighted that individuals over 60 years old or diagnosed with GBM had a higher pooled incidence of VTE among those with overall CNS malignancies. It is important to note that the results of this meta-analysis refer mainly to studies carried out in high-income countries. This highlights the need for additional research in Latin America, and low- and middle-income countries.

Prospective, randomized, controlled trial assessing the effects of a driving pressure-limiting strategy for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia (STAMINA trial): protocol and statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: Driving pressure has been suggested to be the main driver of ventilator-induced lung injury and mortality in observational studies of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy can improve clinical outcomes is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To describe the protocol and statistical analysis plan that will be used to test whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy including positive end-expiratory pressure titration according to the best respiratory compliance and reduction in tidal volume is superior to a standard strategy involving the use of the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table in terms of increasing the number of ventilator-free days in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia. METHODS: The ventilator STrAtegy for coMmunIty acquired pNeumoniA (STAMINA) study is a randomized, multicenter, open-label trial that compares a driving pressure-limiting strategy to the ARDSnet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia admitted to intensive care units. We expect to recruit 500 patients from 20 Brazilian and 2 Colombian intensive care units. They will be randomized to a driving pressure-limiting strategy group or to a standard strategy using the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table. In the driving pressure-limiting strategy group, positive end-expiratory pressure will be titrated according to the best respiratory system compliance. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is the number of ventilator-free days within 28 days. The secondary outcomes are in-hospital and intensive care unit mortality and the need for rescue therapies such as extracorporeal life support, recruitment maneuvers and inhaled nitric oxide. CONCLUSION: STAMINA is designed to provide evidence on whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy is superior to the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table strategy for increasing the number of ventilator-free days within 28 days in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Here, we describe the rationale, design and status of the trial.

Predictors of bleeding and thrombotic events among patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer: insights from the ACTION randomized clinical trial.

Therapeutic anticoagulation showed inconsistent results in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and selection of the best patients to use this strategy still a challenge balancing the risk of thrombotic and hemorrhagic outcomes. The present post-hoc analysis of the ACTION trial evaluated the variables independently associated with both bleeding events (major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding) and the composite outcomes thrombotic events (venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, or major adverse limb events). Variables were assessed one by one with independent logistic regressions and final models were chosen based on Akaike information criteria. The model for bleeding events showed an area under the curve of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 0.73), while the model for thrombotic events had an area under the curve of 0.72 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.79). Non-invasive respiratory support was associated with thrombotic but not bleeding events, while invasive ventilation was associated with both outcomes (Odds Ratio of 7.03 [95 CI% 1.95 to 25.18] for thrombotic and 3.14 [95% CI 1.11 to 8.84] for bleeding events). Beyond respiratory support, creatinine level (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.01 95% CI 1.00 to 1.02 for every 1.0 mg/dL) and history of coronary disease (OR 3.67; 95% CI 1.32 to 10.29) were also independently associated to the risk of thrombotic events. Non-invasive respiratory support, history of coronary disease, and creatinine level may help to identify hospitalized COVID-19 patients at higher risk of thrombotic complications.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04394377.

Immunomodulators for immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: Although immunomodulators have established benefit against the new coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in general, it is uncertain whether such agents improve outcomes without increasing the risk of secondary infections in the specific subgroup of previously immunocompromised patients. We assessed the effect of immunomodulators on outcomes of immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Methods: The protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022335397). MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and references of relevant articles were searched up to 01-06-2022. Authors of potentially eligible randomized controlled trials were contacted to provide data on immunocompromised patients randomized to immunomodulators vs control (i.e., placebo or standard-of-care). Findings: Eleven randomized controlled trials involving 397 immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were included. Ten trials had low risk of bias. There was no difference between immunocompromised patients randomized to immunomodulators vs control regarding mortality [30/182 (16.5%) vs 41/215 (19.1%); RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.61-1.41; p = 0.74], secondary infections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.64-1.58; p = 0.99) and change in World Health Organization ordinal scale from baseline to day 15 (weighed mean difference 0.27, 95% CI -0.09-0.63; p = 0.15). In subgroup analyses including only patients with hematologic malignancy, only trials with low risk of bias, only trials administering IL-6 inhibitors, or only trials administering immunosuppressants, there was no difference between comparators regarding mortality. Interpretation: Immunomodulators, compared to control, were not associated with harmful or beneficial outcomes, including mortality, secondary infections, and change in ordinal scale, when administered to immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Funding: Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation.

Determinants of fluid use and the association between volume of fluid used and effect of balanced solutions on mortality in critically ill patients: a secondary analysis of the BaSICS trial.

PURPOSE: Fluid use could modulate the effect of balanced solutions (BS) on outcome of intensive care unit (ICU) patients. It is uncertain whether fluid use practices are driven more by patient features or local practices. It is also unclear whether a "dose-response" for the potential benefits of balanced solutions exists. METHODS: The secondary analysis of the Balanced Solution in Intensive Care Study (BaSICS) compared 0.9% saline versus Plasma-Lyte 148® (BS) for fluid therapy in the ICU. The relative contribution of patient features and enrolling site (the random effect) on the volume of fluid used up to day 3 after admission was assessed using different methods, including a Bayesian regression, a frequentist mixed model, and a random forest, all adjusted for relevant patient confounders. Subsequently, a variety of methods were used to assess whether volume of fluid used modulated the effect of BS on 90-day mortality, including a traditional subgroup analysis for patients that remained alive and in the ICU up to 3 days, a Bayesian network accounting for competing risks, and an analysis based on site practices. RESULTS: 10,505 patients were analyzed. Median fluid use in the BS arm and in the 0.9% saline arm were 2500 mL and 2488 mL, respectively. The random effect in the Bayesian regression explained 0.32 (95% credible intervals (CrI) 0.24-0.41) of all model variance (0.33, 95% credible intervals from 0.32-0.35). Frequentist and random forest models produced similar results. In the analysis including only patients alive and in the ICU at 3 days, there was a strong suggestion of interaction between fluid use and the effect of BS, driven mostly by a lower mortality with BS compared to 0.9% saline as fluid use increased for patients with sepsis. These results were consistent in the Bayesian network analysis and in an analysis based on site practices, where septic patients enrolled to BS at high fluid use sites had a lower mortality (absolute risk reduction of - 0.13 [95% credible interval - 0.27 to - 0.01]; 0.98 probability of benefit). CONCLUSION: Baseline patient characteristics collected in the BaSICS trial explain less of the variance of fluid use during the first 3 days than the enrolling site. Volume of fluid used and the effects of BS appear to interact, mostly in the sepsis subgroup where there was a strong association between fluid use after enrollment and the effect of BS on 90-day mortality.

A Randomized, Open-Label, Non-inferiority Clinical Trial Assessing 7 Versus 14 Days of Antimicrobial Therapy for Severe Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections: The OPTIMISE Trial Protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Shorter courses of antimicrobials have been shown to be non-inferior to longer, "traditional" duration of therapies, including for some severe healthcare-associated infections, with a few exceptions. However, evidence is lacking regarding shorter regimes against severe infections by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB), which are often caused by distinct strains and commonly treated with second-line antimicrobials. In the duratiOn of theraPy in severe infecTIons by MultIdrug-reSistant gram-nEgative bacteria (OPTIMISE) trial, we aim to assess the non-inferiority of 7-day versus 14-day antimicrobial therapy in critically ill patients with severe infections caused by MDR-GNB. METHODS: This is a randomized, multicenter, open-label, parallel controlled trial to assess the non-inferiority of 7-day versus 14-day of adequate antimicrobial therapy for intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired severe infections by MDR-GNB. Adult patients with severe infections by MDR-GNB initiated after 48 h of ICU admission are screened for eligibility. Patients are eligible if they proved to be hemodynamically stable and without fever for at least 48 h on the 7th day of adequate antimicrobial therapy. After consenting, patients are 1:1 randomized to discontinue antimicrobial therapy on the 7th (± 1) day or to continue for a total of 14th (± 1) days. PLANNED OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is treatment failure, defined as death or relapse of infection within 28 days after randomization. Non-inferiority will be achieved if the upper edge of the two-tailed 95% confidence interval of the difference between the clinical failure rate in the 7-day and the 14-day group is not higher than 10%. CONCLUSION: The OPTIMISE trial is the first randomized controlled trial specifically designed to assess the duration of antimicrobial therapy in patients with severe infections by MDR-GNB. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05210387. Registered on 27 January 2022. Seven Versus 14 Days of Antibiotic Therapy for Multidrug-resistant Gram-negative Bacilli Infections (OPTIMISE).

Prospective, randomized, controlled trial assessing the effects of a driving pressure-limiting strategy for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia (STAMINA trial): protocol and statistical analysis plan / Estudo randomizado prospectivo e controlado de avaliação dos efeitos de uma estratégia de limitação da driving pressure em pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo devido à pneumonia adquirida na comunidade (estudo STAMINA): protocolo e plano de análise estatística

ABSTRACT Background: Driving pressure has been suggested to be the main driver of ventilator-induced lung injury and mortality in observational studies of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy can improve clinical outcomes is unclear. Objective: To describe the protocol and statistical analysis plan that will be used to test whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy including positive end-expiratory pressure titration according to the best respiratory compliance and reduction in tidal volume is superior to a standard strategy involving the use of the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table in terms of increasing the number of ventilator-free days in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia. Methods: The ventilator STrAtegy for coMmunIty acquired pNeumoniA (STAMINA) study is a randomized, multicenter, open-label trial that compares a driving pressure-limiting strategy to the ARDSnet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia admitted to intensive care units. We expect to recruit 500 patients from 20 Brazilian and 2 Colombian intensive care units. They will be randomized to a driving pressure-limiting strategy group or to a standard strategy using the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table. In the driving pressure-limiting strategy group, positive end-expiratory pressure will be titrated according to the best respiratory system compliance. Outcomes: The primary outcome is the number of ventilator-free days within 28 days. The secondary outcomes are in-hospital and intensive care unit mortality and the need for rescue therapies such as extracorporeal life support, recruitment maneuvers and inhaled nitric oxide. Conclusion: STAMINA is designed to provide evidence on whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy is superior to the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table strategy for increasing the number of ventilator-free days within 28 days in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Here, we describe the rationale, design and status of the trial.

RESUMO Contexto: Em estudos observacionais sobre a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo, sugeriu-se que a driving pressure é o principal fator de lesão pulmonar induzida por ventilador e de mortalidade. Não está claro se uma estratégia de limitação da driving pressure pode melhorar os desfechos clínicos. Objetivo: Descrever o protocolo e o plano de análise estatística que serão usados para testar se uma estratégia de limitação da driving pressure envolvendo a titulação da pressão positiva expiratória final de acordo com a melhor complacência respiratória e a redução do volume corrente é superior a uma estratégia padrão envolvendo o uso da tabela de pressão positiva expiratória final baixa do protocolo ARDSNet, em termos de aumento do número de dias sem ventilador em pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo devido à pneumonia adquirida na comunidade. Métodos: O estudo STAMINA (ventilator STrAtegy for coMmunIty acquired pNeumoniA) é randomizado, multicêntrico e aberto e compara uma estratégia de limitação da driving pressure com a tabela de pressão positiva expiratória final baixa do protocolo ARDSnet em pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo moderada a grave devido à pneumonia adquirida na comunidade internados em unidades de terapia intensiva. Esperamos recrutar 500 pacientes de 20 unidades de terapia intensiva brasileiras e duas colombianas. Eles serão randomizados para um grupo da estratégia de limitação da driving pressure ou para um grupo de estratégia padrão usando a tabela de pressão positiva expiratória final baixa do protocolo ARDSnet. No grupo da estratégia de limitação da driving pressure, a pressão positiva expiratória final será titulada de acordo com a melhor complacência do sistema respiratório. Desfechos: O desfecho primário é o número de dias sem ventilador em 28 dias. Os desfechos secundários são a mortalidade hospitalar e na unidade de terapia intensiva e a necessidade de terapias de resgate, como suporte de vida extracorpóreo, manobras de recrutamento e óxido nítrico inalado. Conclusão: O STAMINA foi projetado para fornecer evidências sobre se uma estratégia de limitação da driving pressure é superior à estratégia da tabela de pressão positiva expiratória final baixa do protocolo ARDSnet para aumentar o número de dias sem ventilador em 28 dias em pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo moderada a grave. Aqui, descrevemos a justificativa, o desenho e o status do estudo.

Cardiovascular Safety of Azithromycin in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Prespecified Pooled Analysis of the COALITION I and COALITION II Randomized Clinical Trials.

The cardiovascular safety from azithromycin in the treatment of several infectious diseases has been challenged. In this prespecified pooled analysis of 2 multicenter randomized clinical trials, we aimed to assess whether the use of azithromycin might lead to corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation or clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias. In the COALITION COVID Brazil I trial, 667 patients admitted with moderate COVID-19 were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine, hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, or standard of care. In the COALITION COVID Brazil II trial, 447 patients with severe COVID-19 were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine alone versus hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin. The principal end point for the present analysis was the composite of death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or ventricular arrhythmias. The addition of azithromycin to hydroxychloroquine did not result in any prolongation of the QTc interval (425.8 ± 3.6 ms vs 427.9 ± 3.9 ms, respectively, mean difference -2.1 ms, 95% confidence interval -12.5 to 8.4 ms, p = 0.70). The combination of azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine compared with hydroxychloroquine alone did not result in increased risk of the primary end point (proportion of patients with events at 15 days 17.2% vs 16.0%, respectively, hazard ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.49, p = 0.65). In conclusion, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 already receiving standard-of-care management (including hydroxychloroquine), the addition of azithromycin did not result in the prolongation of the QTc interval or increase in cardiovascular adverse events. Because azithromycin is among the most commonly prescribed antimicrobial agents, our results may inform clinical practice. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04322123, NCT04321278.

Application of ventilator-associated events (VAE) in ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) notified in Brazil (IMPACTO MR-PAV): a protocol for a cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Certain criteria for ventilator-associated events (VAE) definition might influence the type of an event, its detection rate and consequently the resource expenditure in intensive care unit. The Impact of Infections by Antimicrobial-Resistant Microorganisms - Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (IMPACTO MR-PAV) aims to evaluate the incidence and diagnostic accuracy of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) using the current criteria for VAP surveillance in Brazil versus the VAE criteria defined by the US National Healthcare Safety Network-Center for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will be conducted in around 15 centres across Brazil from October 2022 to December 2023. Trained healthcare professionals will collect data and compare the incidence of VAP using both the current criteria for VAP surveillance in Brazil and the VAE criteria defined by the CDC. The accuracy of the two criteria for identifying VAP will also be analysed. It will also characterise other events associated with mechanical ventilation (ventilator-associated condition, infection-related ventilator-associated complication) and adjudicate VAP reported to the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA) using current epidemiological diagnostic criteria. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board under the number 52354721.0.1001.0070. The study's primary outcome measure will be the incidence of VAP using the two different surveillance criteria, and the secondary outcome measures will be the accuracy of the two criteria for identifying VAP and the adjudication of VAP reported to ANVISA. The results will contribute to the improvement of VAP surveillance in Brazil and may have implications for other countries that use similar criteria. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05589727; Clinicaltrials.gov.

The II Brazilian Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 Joint Guidelines of the Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia and Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia.

OBJECTIVE: To update the recommendations to support decisions regarding the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: Experts, including representatives of the Ministry of Health and methodologists, created this guideline. The method used for the rapid development of guidelines was based on the adoption and/or adaptation of existing international guidelines (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) and supported by the e-COVID-19 RecMap platform. The quality of the evidence and the preparation of the recommendations followed the GRADE method. RESULTS: Twenty-one recommendations were generated, including strong recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in patients using supplemental oxygen and conditional recommendations for the use of tocilizumab and baricitinib for patients on supplemental oxygen or on noninvasive ventilation and anticoagulants to prevent thromboembolism. Due to suspension of use authorization, it was not possible to make recommendations regarding the use of casirivimab + imdevimab. Strong recommendations against the use of azithromycin in patients without suspected bacterial infection, hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, colchicine, and lopinavir + ritonavir and conditional recommendations against the use of ivermectin and remdesivir were made. CONCLUSION: New recommendations for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were generated, such as those for tocilizumab and baricitinib. Corticosteroids and prophylaxis for thromboembolism are still recommended, the latter with conditional recommendation. Several drugs were considered ineffective and should not be used to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and to promote resource economy.

The II Brazilian Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 Joint Guidelines of the Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia and Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia / II Diretrizes Brasileiras para o tratamento farmacológico de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 Diretriz conjunta da Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia e Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia

ABSTRACT Objective: To update the recommendations to support decisions regarding the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Brazil. Methods: Experts, including representatives of the Ministry of Health and methodologists, created this guideline. The method used for the rapid development of guidelines was based on the adoption and/or adaptation of existing international guidelines (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) and supported by the e-COVID-19 RecMap platform. The quality of the evidence and the preparation of the recommendations followed the GRADE method. Results: Twenty-one recommendations were generated, including strong recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in patients using supplemental oxygen and conditional recommendations for the use of tocilizumab and baricitinib for patients on supplemental oxygen or on noninvasive ventilation and anticoagulants to prevent thromboembolism. Due to suspension of use authorization, it was not possible to make recommendations regarding the use of casirivimab + imdevimab. Strong recommendations against the use of azithromycin in patients without suspected bacterial infection, hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, colchicine, and lopinavir + ritonavir and conditional recommendations against the use of ivermectin and remdesivir were made. Conclusion: New recommendations for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were generated, such as those for tocilizumab and baricitinib. Corticosteroids and prophylaxis for thromboembolism are still recommended, the latter with conditional recommendation. Several drugs were considered ineffective and should not be used to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and to promote resource economy.

RESUMO Objetivo: Atualizar as recomendações para embasar as decisões para o tratamento farmacológico de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 no Brasil. Métodos: A elaboração desta diretriz foi feita por especialistas, incluindo representantes do Ministério da Saúde e metodologistas. O método utilizado para o desenvolvimento rápido de diretrizes baseou-se na adoção e/ou adaptação de diretrizes internacionais existentes (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) e contou com o apoio da plataforma e-COVID-19 RecMap. A qualidade das evidências e a elaboração das recomendações seguiram o método GRADE. Resultados: Chegaram-se a 21 recomendações, incluindo recomendações fortes quanto ao uso de corticosteroides em pacientes em uso de oxigênio suplementar e recomendações condicionais para o uso de tocilizumabe e baricitinibe, em pacientes com oxigênio suplementar ou ventilação não invasiva, e de anticoagulantes, para prevenção de tromboembolismo. Devido à suspensão da autorização de uso, não foi possível fazer recomendações para o tratamento com casirivimabe + imdevimabe. Foram feitas recomendações fortes contra o uso de azitromicina em pacientes sem suspeita de infecção bacteriana, hidroxicloroquina, plasma convalescente, colchicina e lopinavir + ritonavir, além de recomendações condicionais contra o uso de ivermectina e rendesivir. Conclusão: Foram criadas novas recomendações para o tratamento de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19, como as recomendações de tocilizumabe e baricitinibe. Ainda são recomendados corticosteroides e profilaxia contra tromboembolismo, esta em caráter condicional. Vários medicamentos foram considerados ineficazes e não devem ser usados, no intuito de proporcionar o melhor tratamento segundo os princípios da medicina baseada em evidências e promover a economia de recursos.

Erratum: Evaluation of the characteristics of infection prevention and control programs and infection control committees in Brazilian hospitals: A countrywide cross-sectional study - CORRIGENDUM.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1017/ash.2023.136.].

Rivaroxaban to prevent major clinical outcomes in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19: the CARE - COALITION VIII randomised clinical trial.

Background: COVID-19 progression is associated with an increased risk of arterial and venous thrombosis. Randomised trials have demonstrated that anticoagulants reduce the risk of thromboembolism in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, but a benefit of routine anticoagulation has not been demonstrated in the outpatient setting. Methods: We conducted a randomised, open-label, controlled, multicentre study, evaluating the use of rivaroxaban in mild or moderate COVID-19 patients. Adults ≥18 years old, with probable or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, presenting within ≤7 days from symptom onset with no clear indication for hospitalization, plus at least 2 risk factors for complication, were randomised 1:1 either to rivaroxaban 10 mg OD for 14 days or to routine care. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of venous thromboembolic events, need of mechanical ventilation, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, acute limb ischemia, or death due to COVID-19 during the first 30 days. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04757857. Findings: Enrollment was prematurely stopped due to sustained reduction in new COVID-19 cases. From September 29th, 2020, through May 23rd, 2022, 660 patients were randomised (median age 61 [Q1-Q3 47-69], 55.7% women). There was no significant difference between rivaroxaban and control in the primary efficacy endpoint (4.3% [14/327] vs 5.8% [19/330], RR 0.74; 95% CI: 0.38-1.46). There was no major bleeding in the control group and 1 in the rivaroxaban group. Interpretation: On light of these findings no decision can be made about the utility of rivaroxaban to improve outcomes in outpatients with COVID-19. Metanalyses data provide no evidence of a benefit of anticoagulant prophylaxis in outpatients with COVID-19. These findings were the result of an underpowered study, therefore should be interpreted with caution. Funding: COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and Bayer S.A.

Evaluation of the characteristics of infection prevention and control programs and infection control committees in Brazilian hospitals: A countrywide cross-sectional study.

Objective: Data are scarce regarding hospital infection control committees and compliance with infection prevention and control (IPC) recommendations in Brazil, a country of continental dimensions. We assessed the main characteristics of infection control committees (ICCs) on healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) in Brazilian hospitals. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in ICCs of public and private hospitals distributed across all Brazilian regions. Data were collected directly from the ICC staff by completing an online questionnaire and during on-site visits through face-to-face interviews. Results: In total, 53 Brazilian hospitals were evaluated from October 2019 to December 2020. All hospitals had implemented the IPC core components in their programs. All centers had protocols for the prevention and control of ventilator-associated pneumonia as well as bloodstream, surgical site, and catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Most hospitals (80%) had no budget specifically allocated to the IPC program; 34% of the laundry staff had received specific IPC training; and only 7.5% of hospitals reported occupational infections in healthcare workers. Conclusions: In this sample, most ICCs complied with the minimum requirements for IPC programs. The main limitation regarding ICCs was the lack of financial support. The findings of this survey support the development of strategic plans to improve IPCs in Brazilian hospitals.

Hydroxychloroquine for Non-Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. / Hidroxicloroquina para Pacientes com COVID-19 não Hospitalizados: Uma Revisão Sistemática e Metanálise de Ensaios Clínicos Randomizados.

BACKGROUND: Previous systematic reviews have identified no benefit of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. After publication of these reviews, the results of COPE, the largest randomized trial conducted to date, became available. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to synthesize the evidence on the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared to placebo or standard of care. METHODS: Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov complemented by manual search. Pairwise meta-analyses, risk of bias, and evidence certainty assessments were conducted, including optimal information size analysis (OIS). A level of significance of 0.05 was adopted in the meta-analysis. PROSPERO: CRD42021265427. RESULTS: Eight RCTs with 3,219 participants were included. COVID-19 hospitalization and any adverse events rates were not significantly different between hydroxychloroquine (5.6% and 35.1%) and control (7.4% and 20.4%) (risk ratio, RR, 0.77, 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.57-1.04, I2: 0%; RR 1.78, 95%-CI 0.90; 3.52, I2: 93%, respectively). The OIS (7,880) was not reached for COVID-19 hospitalization, independently of the simulation for anticipated event rate and RR reduction estimate. CONCLUSION: Evidence of very low certainty showed lack of benefit with hydroxychloroquine in preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations. Despite being the systematic review with the largest number of participants included, the OIS, considering pre-vaccination response to infection, has not yet been reached.

FUNDAMENTO: Revisões sistemáticas anteriores não identificaram benefício do uso da hidroxicloroquina ou da cloroquina em pacientes com COVID-19 não hospitalizados. Após a publicação dessas revisões, os resultados do COPE, o maior ensaio clínico randomizado até hoje, tornaram-se disponíveis. OBJETIVOS: Conduzir uma revisão sistemática e metanálise de ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECRs) para sintetizar as evidências sobre a eficácia e a segurança da hidroxicloroquina e da cloroquina em pacientes com COVID-19 não hospitalizados em comparação a controle ou tratamento padrão. MÉTODOS: As buscas foram conduzidas nos bancos de dados PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library e ClinicalTrials.gov, e complementadas por busca manual. Foram realizadas metanálises diretas e avaliações de risco de viés e certeza da evidência, incluindo análise do tamanho ótimo da informação (OIS, optimal information size). Um nível de significância de 0,05 foi adotado na metanálise. PROSPERO: CRD42021265427. RESULTADOS: Oito ECRs com 3219 participantes foram incluídos. As taxas de internação por COVID-19 e de eventos adversos não foram significativamente diferentes entre hidroxicloroquina (5,6% e 5,1%) e controle (7,4% e 20,4%) [risco relativo (RR) 0,77, intervalo de confiança 95% (IC95%), 0,57-1,04, I2: 0%; RR 1,78, IC95% 0,90; 3,52, I2: 93%, respectivamente)]. O OIS (7880) não foi alcançado para hospitalização por COVID-19, independentemente da simulação para a taxa de evento e redução do RR estimados. CONCLUSÃO: A evidência de muito baixa qualidade indicou falta de benefício com hidroxicloroquina em prevenir internações por COVID-19. Apesar de ser a revisão sistemática com o maior número de participantes incluídos, o OIS, considerando a resposta à infecção anterior à vacinação, não foi atingido.

Attributable mortality due to nosocomial sepsis in Brazilian hospitals: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Nosocomial sepsis is a major healthcare issue, but there are few data on estimates of its attributable mortality. We aimed to estimate attributable mortality fraction (AF) due to nosocomial sepsis. METHODS: Matched 1:1 case-control study in 37 hospitals in Brazil. Hospitalized patients in participating hospitals were included. Cases were hospital non-survivors and controls were hospital survivors, which were matched by admission type and date of discharge. Exposure was defined as occurrence of nosocomial sepsis, defined as antibiotic prescription plus presence of organ dysfunction attributed to sepsis without an alternative reason for organ failure; alternative definitions were explored. Main outcome measurement was nosocomial sepsis-attributable fractions, estimated using inversed-weight probabilities methods using generalized mixed model considering time-dependency of sepsis occurrence. RESULTS: 3588 patients from 37 hospitals were included. Mean age was 63 years and 48.8% were female at birth. 470 sepsis episodes occurred in 388 patients (311 in cases and 77 in control group), with pneumonia being the most common source of infection (44.3%). Average AF for sepsis mortality was 0.076 (95% CI 0.068-0.084) for medical admissions; 0.043 (95% CI 0.032-0.055) for elective surgical admissions; and 0.036 (95% CI 0.017-0.055) for emergency surgeries. In a time-dependent analysis, AF for sepsis rose linearly for medical admissions, reaching close to 0.12 on day 28; AF plateaued earlier for other admission types (0.04 for elective surgery and 0.07 for urgent surgery). Alternative sepsis definitions yield different estimates. CONCLUSION: The impact of nosocomial sepsis on outcome is more pronounced in medical admissions and tends to increase over time. The results, however, are sensitive to sepsis definitions.