Brazilian Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19: Joint guideline of 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, Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia. / 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.

OBJECTIVE: Several therapies are being used or proposed for COVID-19, and many lack appropriate evaluations of their effectiveness and safety. The purpose of this document is to develop recommendations to support decisions regarding the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: A group of 27 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: Sixteen recommendations were generated. They include strong recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in patients using supplemental oxygen, the use of anticoagulants at prophylactic doses to prevent thromboembolism and the nonuse of antibiotics in patients without suspected bacterial infection. It was not possible to make a recommendation regarding the use of tocilizumab in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 using oxygen due to uncertainties regarding the availability of and access to the drug. Strong recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, colchicine, lopinavir + ritonavir and antibiotics in patients without suspected bacterial infection and also conditional recommendations against the use of casirivimab + imdevimab, ivermectin and rendesivir were made. CONCLUSION: To date, few therapies have proven effective in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and only corticosteroids and prophylaxis for thromboembolism are recommended. Several drugs were considered ineffective and should not be used to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and promote economical resource use.

OBJETIVOS: Há diversas terapias sendo utilizadas ou propostas para a COVID-19, muitas carecendo de apropriada avaliação de efetividade e segurança. O propósito deste documento é elaborar recomendações para subsidiar decisões sobre o tratamento farmacológico de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 no Brasil. MÉTODOS: Um grupo de 27 membros, formado por especialistas, representantes do Ministério da Saúde e metodologistas, integra essa diretriz. Foi utilizado o método de elaboração de diretrizes rápidas, tomando por base a adoção e/ou a adaptação de recomendações a partir de diretrizes internacionais existentes (GRADE ADOLOPMENT), apoiadas pela plataforma e-COVID-19 RecMap. A qualidade das evidências e a elaboração das recomendações seguiram o método GRADE. RESULTADOS: Foram geradas 16 recomendações. Entre elas, estão recomendações fortes para o uso de corticosteroides em pacientes em uso de oxigênio suplementar, para o uso de anticoagulantes em doses de profilaxia para tromboembolismo e para não uso de antibacterianos nos pacientes sem suspeita de infecção bacteriana. Não foi possível fazer uma recomendação quanto à utilização do tocilizumabe em pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 em uso de oxigênio, pelas incertezas na disponibilidade e de acesso ao medicamento. Foi feita recomendação para não usar azitromicina, casirivimabe + imdevimabe, cloroquina, colchicina, hidroxicloroquina, ivermectina, lopinavir/ ritonavir, plasma convalescente e rendesivir. CONCLUSÃO: Até o momento, poucas terapias se provaram efetivas no tratamento do paciente hospitalizado com COVID-19, sendo recomendados apenas corticosteroides e profilaxia para tromboembolismo. Diversos medicamentos foram considerados ineficazes, devendo ser descartados, de forma a oferecer o melhor tratamento pelos princípios da medicina baseada em evidências e promover economia de recursos não eficazes.

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 / Brazilian Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19: Joint guideline of 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, Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia

Há diversas terapias sendo utilizadas ou propostas para a COVID-19, muitas carecendo de apropriada avaliação de efetividade e segurança. O propósito deste documento é elaborar recomendações para subsidiar decisões sobre o tratamento farmacológico de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 no Brasil. Métodos: Um grupo de 27 membros, formado por especialistas, representantes do Ministério da Saúde e metodologistas, integra essa diretriz. Foi utilizado o método de elaboração de diretrizes rápidas, tomando por base a adoção e/ou a adaptação de recomendações a partir de diretrizes internacionais existentes (GRADE ADOLOPMENT), apoiadas pela plataforma e-COVID-19 RecMap. A qualidade das evidências e a elaboração das recomendações seguiram o método GRADE. Resultados: Foram geradas 16 recomendações. Entre elas, estão recomendações fortes para o uso de corticosteroides em pacientes em uso de oxigênio suplementar, para o uso de anticoagulantes em doses de profilaxia para tromboembolismo e para não uso de antibacterianos nos pacientes sem suspeita de infecção bacteriana. Não foi possível fazer uma recomendação quanto à utilização do tocilizumabe em pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 em uso de oxigênio, pelas incertezas na disponibilidade e de acesso ao medicamento. Foi feita recomendação para não usar azitromicina, casirivimabe + imdevimabe, cloroquina, colchicina, hidroxicloroquina, ivermectina, lopinavir/ ritonavir, plasma convalescente e rendesivir. Conclusão: Até o momento, poucas terapias se provaram efetivas no tratamento do paciente hospitalizado com COVID-19, sendo recomendados apenas corticosteroides e profilaxia para tromboembolismo. Diversos medicamentos foram considerados ineficazes, devendo ser descartados, de forma a oferecer o melhor tratamento pelos princípios da medicina baseada em evidências e promover economia de recursos não eficazes.

Several therapies are being used or proposed for COVID-19, and many lack appropriate evaluations of their effectiveness and safety. The purpose of this document is to develop recommendations to support decisions regarding the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Brazil. Methods: A group of 27 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: Sixteen recommendations were generated. They include strong recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in patients using supplemental oxygen, the use of anticoagulants at prophylactic doses to prevent thromboembolism and the nonuse of antibiotics in patients without suspected bacterial infection. It was not possible to make a recommendation regarding the use of tocilizumab in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 using oxygen due to uncertainties regarding the availability of and access to the drug. Strong recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, colchicine, lopinavir + ritonavir and antibiotics in patients without suspected bacterial infection and also conditional recommendations against the use of casirivimab + imdevimab, ivermectin and rendesivir were made. Conclusion: To date, few therapies have proven effective in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and only corticosteroids and prophylaxis for thromboembolism are recommended. Several drugs were considered ineffective and should not be used to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and promote economical resource use.

Carbapenem-resistant bacilli in a hospital in southern Brazil: prevalence and therapeutic implications.

BACKGROUND: Gram-negative bacilli (GNB), notably Acinetobacter spp., Pseudomonas spp., and Klebsiella spp., are becoming increasingly resistant to carbapenems and are associated with high health care costs and mortality, becoming a global concern. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence rates of carbapenem resistance among Acinetobacter spp., Pseudomonas spp., and Klebsiella spp. in the main sites of nosocomial infection at a tertiary care hospital in southern Brazil and the consequent therapeutic implications. METHODS: Cultures processed at the institution's laboratory in 2017 were analyzed, and those positive for Acinetobacter spp., Pseudomonas spp., and Klebsiella spp. were identified. Antibiograms were evaluated for meropenem sensitivity following the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines. RESULTS: Acinetobacter spp. had the lowest prevalence among the three GNB, and resistance of this pathogen to meropenem at different sites of infection ranged from 36% (blood) to 82% (respiratory tract). Pseudomonas spp. was highly prevalent at the respiratory tract (31%) and had a high resistance rate to meropenem in rectal swab samples (71%), but a relatively low frequency at infection sites (skin/soft tissue, 13%; blood, 25%). Klebsiella spp. was identified in 7.5% of the blood cultures and 15% of the urine cultures and was the chief colonizer among all pathogens, representing 54% of all rectal swab samples, of which 53% were meropenem resistant. At sites of infection, rates of Klebsiella spp. resistant to meropenem ranged from 19% (skin) to 55% (vascular catheter). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of carbapenem-resistant GNB at our hospital was relatively low compared to national and international data; thus, meropenem remains a good therapeutic option against these bacteria. Other antibiotics effective against GNB, such as ceftazidime, cefepime, and piperacillin-tazobactam, can be used in most cases, while meropenem should be reserved for patients with sepsis. Strict contact precaution measures are still needed, given the high resistance rate observed at the colonizing site.

Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19. The task-force/consensus guideline of the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine, the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology. / Diretrizes para o tratamento farmacológico da COVID-19. Consenso da Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, da Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia e da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia.

INTRODUCTION: Different therapies are currently used, considered, or proposed for the treatment of COVID-19; for many of those therapies, no appropriate assessment of effectiveness and safety was performed. This document aims to provide scientifically available evidence-based information in a transparent interpretation, to subsidize decisions related to the pharmacological therapy of COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: A group of 27 experts and methodologists integrated a task-force formed by professionals from the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB), the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (Sociedad Brasileira de Infectologia - SBI) and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology (Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia - SBPT). Rapid systematic reviews, updated on April 28, 2020, were conducted. The assessment of the quality of evidence and the development of recommendations followed the GRADE system. The recommendations were written on May 5, 8, and 13, 2020. RESULTS: Eleven recommendations were issued based on low or very-low level evidence. We do not recommend the routine use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroids, or tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19. Prophylactic heparin should be used in hospitalized patients, however, no anticoagulation should be provided for patients without a specific clinical indication. Antibiotics and oseltamivir should only be considered for patients with suspected bacterial or influenza coinfection, respectively. CONCLUSION: So far no pharmacological intervention was proven effective and safe to warrant its use in the routine treatment of COVID-19 patients; therefore such patients should ideally be treated in the context of clinical trials. The recommendations herein provided will be revised continuously aiming to capture newly generated evidence.

Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19. The task-force/consensus guideline of the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine, the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology

Different therapies are currently used, considered, or proposed for the treatment of COVID-19; for many of those therapies, no appropriate assessment of effectiveness and safety was performed. This document aims to provide scientifically available evidence-based information in a transparent interpretation, to subsidize decisions related to the pharmacological therapy of COVID-19 in Brazil. A group of 27 experts and methodologists integrated a task-force formed by professionals from the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB), the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (Sociedad Brasileira de Infectologia - SBI) and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology (Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia - SBPT). Rapid systematic reviews, updated on April 28, 2020, were conducted. The assessment of the quality of evidence and the development of recommendations followed the GRADE system. The recommendations were written on May 5, 8, and 13, 2020. Eleven recommendations were issued based on low or very-low level evidence. We do not recommend the routine use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroids, or tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19. Prophylactic heparin should be used in hospitalized patients, however, no anticoagulation should be provided for patients without a specific clinical indication. Antibiotics and oseltamivir should only be considered for patients with suspected bacterial or influenza coinfection, respectively. So far no pharmacological intervention was proven effective and safe to warrant its use in the routine treatment of COVID-19 patients; therefore such patients should ideally be treated in the context of clinical trials. The recommendations herein provided will be revised continuously aiming to capture newly generated evidence.

Há diversas terapias sendo utilizadas, consideradas ou propostas para o tratamento da COVID-19, muitas carecendo de apropriada avaliação de efetividade e segurança. O propósito deste documento é fornecer recomendações baseadas nas evidências científicas disponíveis e em sua interpretação transparente, para subsidiar decisões sobre o tratamento farmacológico da COVID-19 no Brasil. Um grupo de 27 especialistas e metodologistas integraram a força-tarefa formada pela Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira (AMIB), pela Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia (SBI) e pela Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia (SBPT). Foram realizadas revisões sistemáticas rápidas, atualizadas até 28 de abril de 2020. A qualidade das evidências e a elaboração das recomendações seguiram o sistema GRADE. As recomendações foram elaboradas nos dias 5, 8 e 13 de maio de 2020. Foram geradas 11 recomendações, embasadas em evidência de nível baixo ou muito baixo. Não há indicação para uso de rotina de hidroxicloroquina, cloroquina, azitromicina, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroides ou tocilizumabe no tratamento da COVID-19. Heparina deve ser utilizada em doses profiláticas no paciente hospitalizado, mas não deve ser realizada anticoagulação na ausência de indicação clínica específica. Antibacterianos e oseltamivir devem ser considerados somente nos pacientes em suspeita de coinfecção bacteriana ou por influenza, respectivamente. Até o momento, não há intervenções farmacológicas com efetividade e segurança comprovada que justifiquem seu uso de rotina no tratamento da COVID-19, devendo os pacientes serem tratados preferencialmente no contexto de pesquisa clínica. As recomendações serão revisadas continuamente, de forma a capturar a geração de novas evidências

Diretrizes para o tratamento farmacológico da COVID-19. Consenso da Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, da Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia e da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia / Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19. The task-force/consensus guideline of the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine, the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology

RESUMO Introdução: Há diversas terapias sendo utilizadas, consideradas ou propostas para o tratamento da COVID-19, muitas carecendo de apropriada avaliação de efetividade e segurança. O propósito deste documento é fornecer recomendações baseadas nas evidências científicas disponíveis e em sua interpretação transparente, para subsidiar decisões sobre o tratamento farmacológico da COVID-19 no Brasil. Métodos: Um grupo de 27 especialistas e metodologistas integraram a força-tarefa formada pela Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira (AMIB), pela Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia (SBI) e pela Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia (SBPT). Foram realizadas revisões sistemáticas rápidas, atualizadas até 28 de abril de 2020. A qualidade das evidências e a elaboração das recomendações seguiram o sistema GRADE. As recomendações foram elaboradas nos dias 5, 8 e 13 de maio de 2020. Resultados: Foram geradas 11 recomendações, embasadas em evidência de nível baixo ou muito baixo. Não há indicação para uso de rotina de hidroxicloroquina, cloroquina, azitromicina, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroides ou tocilizumabe no tratamento da COVID-19. Heparina deve ser utilizada em doses profiláticas no paciente hospitalizado, mas não deve ser realizada anticoagulação na ausência de indicação clínica específica. Antibacterianos e oseltamivir devem ser considerados somente nos pacientes em suspeita de coinfecção bacteriana ou por influenza, respectivamente. Conclusão: Até o momento, não há intervenções farmacológicas com efetividade e segurança comprovada que justifiquem seu uso de rotina no tratamento da COVID-19, devendo os pacientes serem tratados preferencialmente no contexto de pesquisa clínica. As recomendações serão revisadas continuamente, de forma a capturar a geração de novas evidências.

ABSTRACT Introduction: Different therapies are currently used, considered, or proposed for the treatment of COVID-19; for many of those therapies, no appropriate assessment of effectiveness and safety was performed. This document aims to provide scientifically available evidence-based information in a transparent interpretation, to subsidize decisions related to the pharmacological therapy of COVID-19 in Brazil. Methods: A group of 27 experts and methodologists integrated a task-force formed by professionals from the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB), the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (Sociedad Brasileira de Infectologia - SBI) and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology (Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia - SBPT). Rapid systematic reviews, updated on April 28, 2020, were conducted. The assessment of the quality of evidence and the development of recommendations followed the GRADE system. The recommendations were written on May 5, 8, and 13, 2020. Results: Eleven recommendations were issued based on low or very-low level evidence. We do not recommend the routine use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroids, or tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19. Prophylactic heparin should be used in hospitalized patients, however, no anticoagulation should be provided for patients without a specific clinical indication. Antibiotics and oseltamivir should only be considered for patients with suspected bacterial or influenza coinfection, respectively. Conclusion: So far no pharmacological intervention was proven effective and safe to warrant its use in the routine treatment of COVID-19 patients; therefore such patients should ideally be treated in the context of clinical trials. The recommendations herein provided will be revised continuously aiming to capture newly generated evidence.

Joint report of SBI (Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases), FEBRASGO (Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Associations), SBU (Brazilian Society of Urology) and SBPC/ML (Brazilian Society of Clinical Pathology/Laboratory Medicine): recommendations for the clinical management of lower urinary tract infections in pregnant and non-pregnant women.

Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common condition in women. There is an increased concern on reduction of bacterial susceptibility resulting from wrongly prescribing antimicrobials. This paper summarizes the recommendations of four Brazilian medical societies (SBI - Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases, FEBRASGO - Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Associations, SBU - Brazilian Society of Urology, and SBPC/ML - Brazilian Society of Clinical Pathology/Laboratory Medicine) on the management of urinary tract infection in women. Asymptomatic bacteriuria should be screened at least twice during pregnancy (early and in the 3rd trimester). All cases of significant bacteriuria (≥105CFU/mL in middle stream sample) should be treated with antimicrobials considering safety and susceptibility profile. In women with typical symptoms of cystitis, dipsticks are not necessary for diagnosis. Urine cultures should be collected in pregnant women, recurrent UTI, atypical cases, and if there is suspicion of pyelonephritis. First line antimicrobials for cystitis are fosfomycin trometamol in a single dose and nitrofurantoin, 100mg every 6hours for five days. Second line drugs are cefuroxime or amoxicillin-clavulanate for seven days. During pregnancy, amoxicillin and other cephalosporins may be used, but with a higher chance of therapeutic failure. In recurrent UTI, all episodes should be confirmed by urine culture. Treatment should be initiated only after urine sampling and with the same regimens indicated for isolated episodes. Prophylaxis options of recurrent UTI are behavioral measures, non-antimicrobial and antimicrobial prophylaxis. Vaginal estrogens may be recommended for postmenopausal women. Other non-antimicrobial prophylaxis, including cranberry and immunoprophylaxis, have weak evidence supporting their use. Antimicrobial prophylaxis may be offered as a continuous or postcoital scheme. In pregnant women, options are cephalexin, 250-500mg and nitrofurantoin, 100mg (contraindicated after 37 weeks of pregnancy). Nonpregnant women may use fosfomycin trometamol, 3g every 10 days, or nitrofurantoin, 100mg (continuous or postcoital).

Joint report of SBI (Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases), FEBRASGO (Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Associations), SBU (Brazilian Society of Urology) and SBPC/ML (Brazilian Society of Clinical Pathology/Laboratory Medicine): recommendations for the clinical management of lower urinary tract infections in pregnant and non-pregnant women

Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common condition in women. There is an increased concern on reduction of bacterial susceptibility resulting from wrongly prescribing antimicrobials. This paper summarizes the recommendations of four Brazilian medical societies (SBI ­ Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases, FEBRASGO ­ Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Associations, SBU ­ Brazilian Society of Urology, and SBPC/ML ­ Brazilian Society of Clinical Pathology/Laboratory Medicine) on the management of urinary tract infection in women. Asymptomatic bacteriuria should be screened at least twice during pregnancy (early and in the 3rd trimester). All cases of significant bacteriuria (≥105 CFU/mL in middle stream sample) should be treated with antimicrobials considering safety and susceptibility profile. In women with typical symptoms of cystitis, dipsticks are not necessary for diagnosis. Urine cultures should be collected in pregnant women, recurrent UTI, atypical cases, and if there is suspicion of pyelonephritis. First line antimicrobials for cystitis are fosfomycin trometamol in a single dose and nitrofurantoin, 100 mg every 6 hours for five days. Second line drugs are cefuroxime or amoxicillin-clavulanate for seven days. During pregnancy, amoxicillin and other cephalosporins may be used, but with a higher chance of therapeutic failure. In recurrent UTI, all episodes should be confirmed by urine culture. Treatment should be initiated only after urine sampling and with the same regimens indicated for isolated episodes. Prophylaxis options of recurrent UTI are behavioral measures, nonantimicrobial and antimicrobial prophylaxis. Vaginal estrogens may be recommended for postmenopausal women. Other non-antimicrobial prophylaxis, including cranberry and immunoprophylaxis, have weak evidence supporting their use. Antimicrobial prophylaxis may be offered as a continuous or postcoital scheme. In pregnant women, options are cephalexin, 250­500 mg and nitrofurantoin, 100 mg (contraindicated after 37 weeks of pregnancy). Nonpregnant women may use fosfomycin trometamol, 3 g every 10 days, or nitrofurantoin, 100 mg (continuous or postcoital)

Cost-effectiveness of posaconazole in private and public Brazilian hospitals / Rentabilidad del uso de posaconazol en hospitales públicos y privados de Brasil

Background: Posaconazole is used for the prophylaxis of invasive fungal disease (IFD). Previous studies have shown it to be cost-effective compared to fluconazole/itraconazole. However, posaconazole has never been economically evaluated in developing countries. Aims: The aim of the present study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of posaconazole compared to fluconazole in public (SUS) and private hospitals (PHS) in Brazil. Methods: A cost-effectiveness simulation was conducted on the basis of a pivotal study on the use of posaconazole in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients, adjusting the costs to Brazilian data. Results: A pharmacoeconomic analysis was performed on a hypothetical sample of 100 patients in each drug group. The total cost of posaconazole use alone was USD$ 220,656.31, whereas that for fluconazole was USD$ 83,875.00. Our results showed that patients with IFD remain hospitalized for an additional 12 days, at an average cost of USD$ 850.85 per patient per day. The total money spent by PHS for 100 patients for 100 days was USD$ 342,318.00 for the posaconazole group and USD$ 302,039.00 for the fluconazole group. An analysis of sensitivity (10%) revealed no intergroup difference. Conclusions: In Brazil posaconazole is cost-effective, and should be considered for the prophylaxis of patients with AMD/myelodysplasia (AML/MDS) undergoing chemotherapy

Antecedentes: El posaconazol se utiliza para la profilaxis de la enfermedad fúngica invasora (EFI). Algunos estudios han demostrado su rentabilidad en comparación con el fluconazol o el itraconazol. Sin embargo, el posaconazol nunca se había evaluado económicamente en el contexto de los países en vías de desarrollo. Objetivos: El objetivo de este estudio fue realizar un análisis de rentabilidad del posaconazol en comparación con el fluconazol en hospitales públicos (SUS) y hospitales privados (PHS) de Brasil. Métodos: Se realizó una simulación de rentabilidad basada en un estudio fundamental para el uso de posaconazol en pacientes con leucemia mieloide aguda (LMA) que adaptaba los costes a los datos brasileños. Resultados: Se realizó un análisis farmacoeconómico de 100 pacientes con cada grupo tratado. El gasto total de 100 días para los antifúngicos evaluados fue 220.656,31 $ para el posaconazol y de 83.875,00 $ para el fluconazol. Los pacientes con EFI permanecen en el hospital una media de 12 días más a un coste medio de 850,85 $ por día y paciente. El gasto total en PHS de 100 pacientes fue 342.318,00 $ para el grupo del posaconazol y 302.039,00 $ para el del fluconazol. No hubo diferencias entre los grupos al realizar un análisis de sensibilidad al 10%. Conclusiones: En Brasil, el posaconazol es rentable y debe tenerse en cuenta al elegir la profilaxis ideal para pacientes con LMA tratados con quimioterapia

A prospective observational cohort study to assess the incidence of acute otitis media among children 0-5 years of age in Southern Brazil

Abstract Objectives: To estimate acute otitis media incidence among young children and impact on quality of life of parents/caregivers in a southern Brazilian city. Methods: Prospective cohort study including children 0-5 years of age registered at a private pediatric practice. Acute otitis media episodes diagnosed by a pediatrician and impact on quality of life of parents/caregivers were assessed during a 12-month follow-up. Results: During September 2008-March 2010, of 1,136 children enrolled in the study, 1074 (95%) were followed: 55.0% were ≤2 years of age, 52.3% males, 94.7% white, and 69.2% had previously received pneumococcal vaccine in private clinics. Acute otitis media incidence per 1000 person-years was 95.7 (95% confidence interval: 77.2-117.4) overall, 105.5 (95% confidence interval: 78.3-139.0) in children ≤2 years of age and 63.6 (95% confidence interval: 43.2-90.3) in children 3-5 years of age. Acute otitis media incidence per 1000 person-years was 86.3 (95% confidence interval: 65.5-111.5) and 117.1 (95% confidence interval: 80.1-165.3) among vaccinated and unvaccinated children, respectively. Nearly 68.9% of parents reported worsening of their overall quality of life. Conclusion: Acute otitis media incidence among unvaccinated children in our study may be useful as baseline data to assess impact of pneumococcal vaccine introduction in the Brazilian National Immunization Program in April 2010.

A prospective observational cohort study to assess the incidence of acute otitis media among children 0-5 years of age in Southern Brazil.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate acute otitis media incidence among young children and impact on quality of life of parents/caregivers in a southern Brazilian city. METHODS: Prospective cohort study including children 0-5 years of age registered at a private pediatric practice. Acute otitis media episodes diagnosed by a pediatrician and impact on quality of life of parents/caregivers were assessed during a 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: During September 2008-March 2010, of 1,136 children enrolled in the study, 1074 (95%) were followed: 55.0% were ≤2 years of age, 52.3% males, 94.7% white, and 69.2% had previously received pneumococcal vaccine in private clinics. Acute otitis media incidence per 1000 person-years was 95.7 (95% confidence interval: 77.2-117.4) overall, 105.5 (95% confidence interval: 78.3-139.0) in children ≤2 years of age and 63.6 (95% confidence interval: 43.2-90.3) in children 3-5 years of age. Acute otitis media incidence per 1000 person-years was 86.3 (95% confidence interval: 65.5-111.5) and 117.1 (95% confidence interval: 80.1-165.3) among vaccinated and unvaccinated children, respectively. Nearly 68.9% of parents reported worsening of their overall quality of life. CONCLUSION: Acute otitis media incidence among unvaccinated children in our study may be useful as baseline data to assess impact of pneumococcal vaccine introduction in the Brazilian National Immunization Program in April 2010.

Management of infection by the Zika virus

A panel of national experts was convened by the Brazilian Infectious Diseases Society in order to organize the national recommendations for the management of zika virus infection. The focus of this document is the diagnosis, both clinical and laboratorial, and appropriate treatment of the diverse manifestations of this infection, ranging from acute mild disease to Guillain-Barré syndrome and also microcephaly and congenital malformations

Brazilian guidelines for the management of candidiasis - a joint meeting report of three medical societies: Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Paulista de Infectologia and Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical

Candida infections account for 80% of all fungal infections in the hospital environment, including bloodstream, urinary tract and surgical site infections. Bloodstream infections are now a major challenge for tertiary hospitals worldwide due to their high prevalence and mortality rates. The incidence of candidemia in tertiary public hospitals in Brazil is approximately 2.5 cases per 1000 hospital admissions. Due to the importance of this infection, the authors provide a review of the diversity of the genus Candida and its clinical relevance, the therapeutic options and discuss the treatment of major infections caused by Candida. Each topography is discussed with regard to epidemiological, clinical and laboratory diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations based on levels of evidence.

Brazilian guidelines for the management of candidiasis - a joint meeting report of three medical societies: Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Paulista de Infectologia and Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical.

Candida infections account for 80% of all fungal infections in the hospital environment, including bloodstream, urinary tract and surgical site infections. Bloodstream infections are now a major challenge for tertiary hospitals worldwide due to their high prevalence and mortality rates. The incidence of candidemia in tertiary public hospitals in Brazil is approximately 2.5 cases per 1000 hospital admissions. Due to the importance of this infection, the authors provide a review of the diversity of the genus Candida and its clinical relevance, the therapeutic options and discuss the treatment of major infections caused by Candida. Each topography is discussed with regard to epidemiological, clinical and laboratory diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations based on levels of evidence.