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

Esofagite por Candida: distribuição da espécie e fatores de risco para a infecção

Although Candida albicans is the main cause of fungal esophagitis, other species such as C. tropicalis, C. krusei and C. stellatoidea have also been implicated. Several studies have identified risk factors for C. albicans esophagitis. However, data for non-C. albicans species is still sparse. The aim of this study was to determine the etiology of Candida esophagitis in our medical centre over an 18-month period. Additionally, we aimed to investigate predisposing conditions for esophageal candidosis caused by different Candida species. A total of 21,248 upper gastroscopies were performed in Santa Casa Complexo Hospitalar between January 2005 and July 2006. The prevalence of Candida esophagitis was 0.74% (n = 158). C. albicans caused the vast majority of infections (96.2%), followed by C. tropicalis (2.5%), C. lusitaniae (0.6%) and C. glabrata (0.6%). There were 81 women (51.3%) and 77 men (48.7%). No case of mixed infection occurred. Concomitant oral candidosis was documented for 10.8% (n = 17). Most of cases (55.1%) involved outpatients. Around one fifth of patients in our cohort had no identifiable risk factors for esophageal candidosis (20.8%). Since nearly all infections were caused by C. albicans we were not able to determine risk factors for esophagitis caused by other Candida species.Embora Candida albicans seja a principal causa de esofagite fúngica, outras espécies como C. tropicalis, C. krusei e C. stellatoidea também têm sido implicadas. O objetivo desse estudo foi descrever espécies causadoras de esofagite fúngica em nosso centro durante um período de 18 meses, além de comparar condições predisponentes para candidose esofágica causadas por diferentes espécies de Candida. De janeiro de 2005 a julho de 2006, 21.248 endoscopias digestivas altas foram realizadas no Complexo Hospitalar Santa Casa (Porto Alegre, Brasil). A prevalência de esofagite por Candida foi de 0,74% (n = 158). C. albicans foi a causadora da maioria das infecções (96,2%), seguida por C. tropicalis (2,5%), C. lusitaniae (0,6%) e C. glabrata (0,6%). Candidose oral concomitante foi documentada em 10,8% (n = 17). Cerca de 21% dos pacientes não teve qualquer fator de risco identificável para candidose esofágica. Em função do pequeno número de pacientes infectados por espécies não-Candida albicans, não foi possível determinarmos fatores de risco para estas infecções

Diretrizes brasileiras para o manejo de potenciais doadores de órgãos em morte encefálica. Uma força-tarefa composta por Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Brasileira de Transplantes de Órgãos, Brazilian Research in Critical Care Network e Coordenação Geral do Sistema Nacional de Transplantes

Objective: To contribute to updating the recommendations for brain-dead potential organ donor management. Methods: A group of 27 experts, including intensivists, transplant coordinators, transplant surgeons, and epidemiologists, answered questions related to the following topics were divided into mechanical ventilation, hemodynamics, endocrine-metabolic management, infection, body temperature, blood transfusion, and checklists use. The outcomes considered were cardiac arrests, number of organs removed or transplanted as well as function / survival of transplanted organs. The quality of evidence of the recommendations was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to classify the recommendations. Results: A total of 19 recommendations were drawn from the expert panel. Of these, 7 were classified as strong, 11 as weak and 1 was considered a good clinical practice. Conclusion: Despite the agreement among panel members on most recommendations, the grade of recommendation was mostly weak.Objetivo: Fornecer recomendações para nortear o manejo clínico do potencial doador em morte encefálica. Métodos: O presente documento foi formulado em dois painéis compostos por uma força tarefa integrada por 27 especialistas de diferentes áreas que responderam a questões dirigidas aos seguintes temas: ventilação mecânica, hemodinâmica, suporte endócrino-metabólico, infecção, temperatura corporal, transfusão sanguínea, e uso de checklists. Os desfechos considerados foram: parada cardíaca, número de órgãos retirados ou transplantados e função/sobrevida dos órgãos transplantados. A qualidade das evidências das recomendações foi avaliada pelo sistema Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Resultados: Foram geradas 19 recomendações a partir do painel de especialistas. Dessas, 7 foram classificadas como fortes, 11 fracas e uma foi considerada boa prática clínica. Conclusão: Apesar da concordância entre os membros do painel em relação à maior parte das recomendações, o grau de recomendação é fraco em sua maioria

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 evidencebased 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 taskforce 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.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

Brazilian guidelines for the management of brain-dead potential organ donors : the task force of the AMIB, ABTO, BRICNet, and the General Coordination of the National Transplant System

Objective: To contribute to updating the recommendations for brain-dead potential organ donor management. Method: A group of 27 experts, including intensivists, transplant coordinators, transplant surgeons, and epidemiologists, joined a task force formed by the General Coordination Ofce of the National Transplant System/Brazilian Ministry of Health (CGSNT-MS), the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (AMIB), the Brazilian Association of Organ Transplantation (ABTO), and the Brazilian Research in Intensive Care Network (BRICNet). The questions were developed within the scope of the 2011 Brazilian Guidelines for Management of Adult Potential Multiple-Organ Deceased Donors. The topics were divided into mechanical ventilation, hemodynamic support, endocrine-metabolic management, infection, body temperature, blood transfusion, and use of checklists. The outcomes considered for decision-making were cardiac arrest, number of organs recovered or transplanted per donor, and graft function/sur‑ vival. Rapid systematic reviews were conducted, and the quality of evidence of the recommendations was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Two expert panels were held in November 2016 and February 2017 to classify the recommendations. A systematic review update was performed in June 2020, and the recommendations were reviewed through a Delphi process with the panelists between June and July 2020. Results A total of 19 recommendations were drawn from the expert panel. Of these, 7 were classified as strong (lung-protective ventilation strategy, vasopressors and combining arginine vasopressin to control blood pressure, antidiuretic hormones to control polyuria, serum potassium and magnesium control, and antibiotic use), 11 as weak (alveolar recruitment maneuvers, low-dose dopamine, low-dose corticosteroids, thyroid hormones, glycemic and serum sodium control, nutritional support, body temperature control or hypothermia, red blood cell transfusion, and goal-directed protocols), and 1 was considered a good clinical practice (volemic expansion). Conclusion Despite the agreement among panel members on most recommendations, the grade of recommendation was mostly weak. The observed lack of robust evidence on the topic highlights the importance of the present guideline to improve the management of brain-dead potential organ donors

Users' preferences and perceptions of thecomprehensibility and readability of medication labels

Objective: To evaluate the labeling preferences of medication users and characterize their perceptions of the comprehensibility and readability of medication labels. Methods: We conducted a population-based cross-sectional study of medication users aged 18 years or older in 10 Brazilian capital cities. Perceptions of the comprehensibility and readability of medication labels in relation to sociodemographic characteristics were evaluated by Poisson regression models with robust variance. Labeling preferences were assessed through questions addressing possible improvements and through the use of digitally simulated packages. Results Of 6,255 medication users interviewed, more than half found it difficult or very difficult to read (50.8%) and/or understand (52.0%) medication labels. Difficulties were more pronounced for participants aged 40 years or older, with lower levels of education, and nonwhites. Increasing the font size (93.7%), describing the indications for use (95.9%) and contraindications (95.6%) on the label, and highlighting the expiration date (96.3%) were the most widely accepted improvements. In the evaluation of simulated packages, users preferred factors that improved readability, such as increased font size, use of graphic elements and color to highlight the concentration of the active ingredient, and contrast between the font color and background. The new simulated package design, with increased font size, color to highlight the concentration and contrast between the font color and background, was preferred over the standard design by 77.0% of participants. Conclusion: Based on users’ perceptions, increased font size and use of graphic elements and color to emphasize critical information, such as expiration date and concentration, are factors that contribute to making medication labels clearer to users. Pharmaceutical industries and policy makers should consider these items when developing labels and defining policies on this issue

Rótulos de medicamentos na perspectiva dos profissionais de saúde brasileiros dificuldades, nível de satisfação e melhorias propostas

Objective: To evaluate health professionals’ perceptions of medication error situations associated with labeling. Methods: Crosssectional study of 1056 nurse technicians, nurses, and pharmacists interviewed in 10 Brazilian capital cities. We assessed participants’ perceptions of difficulty in differentiating or seeing information on labels, likelihood of a medication error to occur, and frequency of medication errors, including: 1) look-alike vials or labels; 2) two packages of the same medicine but of different doses; 3) ampoule labels; 4) blister pack labels; and 5) labels printed on secondary packages. Results: Most participants reported it difficult or very difficult to differentiate between look-alike vials (82.4%) and between different doses of the same medicine (82.5%). Identifying important information on ampoules, blister packs, and secondary packages was considered difficult or very difficult by 89.9%, 64.4%, and 48.9% of participants, respectively. Approximately half of the participants reported that an error was most likely to occur in situations involving difficulty in seeing the information on an ampoule, look-alike labels, and packages of the same medicine but of different doses. Conclusion: Difficulty in at least one of the situations involving the identification or differentiation of medication labels is common among health professionals, leading to a greater likelihood of medication errors.Objetivo: Avaliar as percepções de profissionais da saúde sobre situações de erros de medicação associado a rotulagem. Métodos: Estudo transversal com 1.056 técnicos de enfermagem, enfermeiros e farmacêuticos entrevistados em 10 capitais brasileiras. Avaliamos a percepção dos participantes sobre a dificuldade em diferenciar ou ver as informações nos rótulos, a probabilidade de ocorrer um erro de medicação e a frequência de erros de medicação, incluindo: 1) frascos ou rótulos semelhantes; 2) duas embalagens do mesmo medicamento, mas com doses diferentes; 3) rótulos de ampolas; 4) rótulos das embalagens blister; e 5) etiquetas impressas nas embalagens secundárias. Resultados: A maioria dos participantes relatou ser difícil ou muito difícil diferenciar entre frascos idênticos (82,4%) e entre diferentes doses do mesmo medicamento (82,5%). A identificação de informações importantes sobre ampolas, blisters e embalagens secundárias foi considerada difícil ou muito difícil por 89,9%, 64,4% e 48,9% dos participantes, respectivamente. Aproximadamente metade dos participantes relatou que um erro era mais provável de ocorrer em situações envolvendo dificuldade em ver as informações em uma ampola, rótulos semelhantes e embalagens do mesmo medicamento, mas com doses diferentes. Conclusão: A dificuldade em pelo menos uma das situações que envolvem a identificação ou diferenciação dos rótulos dos medicamentos é comum entre os profissionais de saúde, levando a uma maior probabilidade de erros de medicação

Co-Infection by Hepatitis C Virus in HIV-Infected Patients in Southern Brazil: Genotype Distribution and Clinical Correlates

BACKGROUND: Prevalence rates of hepatitis C virus (HCV) co-infection, the distribution of HCV genotypes, and the frequency of spontaneous resolution of hepatitis C in patients infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) have a worldwide disparity. The purpose of this study is to investigate the prevalence of HCV antibodies (anti-HCV) in patients with HIV, the proportion and correlates of infection by different HCV genotypes, and rates of spontaneous resolution of HCV infection. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 1143 HIV patients under follow-up in a HIV/AIDS outpatient reference center of the Brazilian public health system. From 357 anti-HCV positive patients, a consecutive sample of 227 individuals HCV treatment-naïve was interviewed and 207 was tested for HCV-RNA and genotypes. RESULTS: Anti-HCV was detected in 357 patients (31.2%). HCV-RNA was undetectable in 16.4% of 207 anti-HCV positive individuals. Genotype 1 was diagnosed in 81.5% of the sample, genotype 2 in 1.7% and genotype 3 in 16.2%. Male gender was the unique characteristic associated with higher prevalence of genotype 1 HCV. CONCLUSIONS: Co-infection by HCV is frequent among patients with HIV in our State, and it is particularly high the infection by HCV genotype 1. Further investigation is necessary to explain the important regional variation in the proportion of infection by the different HCV genotypes and to better understand rates of spontaneous HCV clearance

Amiodarone for arrhythmia in patients with Chagas disease : a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis

Background Chagas disease is a neglected chronic condition caused by Trypanosoma cruzi, with high prevalence and burden in Latin America. Ventricular arrhythmias are common in patients with Chagas cardiomyopathy, and amiodarone has been widely used for this purpose. The aim of our study was to assess the effect of amiodarone in patients with Chagas cardiomyopathy. Methodology We searched MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS up to January 2018. Data from randomized and observational studies evaluating amiodarone use in Chagas cardiomyopathy were included. Two reviewers selected the studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Overall quality of evidence was accessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Principal findings We included 9 studies (3 before-after studies, 5 case series and 1 randomized controlled trial). Two studies with a total of 38 patients had the full dataset, allowing individual patient data (IPD) analysis. In 24-hour Holter, amiodarone reduced the number of ventricular tachycardia episodes in 99.9% (95%CI 99.8%-100%), ventricular premature beats in 93.1% (95%CI 82%-97.4%) and the incidence of ventricular couplets in 79% (RR 0.21, 95%CI 0.11–0.39). Studies not included in the IPD analysis showed a reduction of ventricular premature beats (5 studies), ventricular tachycardia (6 studies) and ventricular couplets (1 study). We pooled the incidence of adverse side effects with random effects meta-analysis; amiodarone was associated with corneal microdeposits (61.1%, 95%CI 19.0–91.3, 5 studies), gastrointestinal events (16.1%, 95%CI 6.61–34.2, 3 studies), sinus bradycardia (12.7%, 95%CI 3.71–35.5, 6 studies), dermatological events (10.6%, 95%CI 4.77–21.9, 3 studies) and drug discontinuation (7.68%, 95%CI 4.17–13.7, 5 studies). Quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. Conclusions Amiodarone is effective in reducing ventricular arrhythmias, but there is no evidence for hard endpoints (sudden death, hospitalization). Although our findings support the use of amiodarone, it is important to balance the potential benefits and harms at the individual level for decision-making

Use of GRADE for assessment of evidence about prognosis: rating confidence in estimates of event rates in broad categories of patients.

Summary pointsMain concepts- The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach defines quality of evidence as confidence in effect estimates; this conceptualization can readily be applied to bodies of evidence estimating the risk of future of events (that is, prognosis) in broadly defined populations- In the field of prognosis, a body of observational evidence (including single arms of randomized controlled trials) begins as high quality evidence- The five domains GRADE considers in rating down confidence in estimates of treatment effect—that is, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and publication bias—as well as the GRADE criteria for rating up quality, also apply to estimates of the risk of future of events from a body of prognostic studies- Applying these concepts to systematic reviews of prognostic studies provides a useful approach to determine confidence in estimates of overall prognosis in broad populationsLay summary- The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rating confidence in the results of research studies was initially developed for therapeutic questions- The GRADE approach considers study design (randomized trials versus non-randomized designs), risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias; size and trend in the effect are also considered- Observational studies looking at patients’ prognosis may provide robust estimates of the likelihood of undesirable or desirable outcomes in both treated and untreated patients- Patients will often find this information helpful in understanding the likely course of their disease, in planning their future, and in engaging in shared decision making with their healthcare providers- In a previous article, we examined factors that affect confidence in estimates of baseline risk (the risk of bad outcomes in untreated patients), providing examples of how this might influence the confidence in estimates of absolute treatment effect- This paper provides guidance for the use of the GRADE approach to determine confidence in estimates of future events in systematic reviews of prognostic studies in broad categories of patient