Clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients with preexisting dementia: a large multicenter propensity-matched Brazilian cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Although dementia has emerged as an important risk factor for severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, results on COVID-19-related complications and mortality are not consistent. We examined the clinical presentations and outcomes of COVID-19 in a multicentre cohort of in-hospital patients, comparing those with and without dementia. METHODS: This retrospective observational study comprises COVID-19 laboratory-confirmed patients aged ≥ 60 years admitted to 38 hospitals from 19 cities in Brazil. Data were obtained from electronic hospital records. A propensity score analysis was used to match patients with and without dementia (up to 3:1) according to age, sex, comorbidities, year, and hospital of admission. Our primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. We also assessed admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), kidney replacement therapy (KRT), sepsis, nosocomial infection, and thromboembolic events. RESULTS: Among 1,556 patients included in the study, 405 (4.5%) had a diagnosis of dementia and 1,151 were matched controls. When compared to matched controls, patients with dementia had a lower frequency of dyspnoea, cough, myalgia, headache, ageusia, and anosmia; and higher frequency of fever and delirium. They also had a lower frequency of ICU admission (32.7% vs. 47.1%, p < 0.001) and shorter ICU length of stay (7 vs. 9 days, p < 0.026), and a lower frequency of sepsis (17% vs. 24%, p = 0.005), KRT (6.4% vs. 13%, p < 0.001), and IVM (4.6% vs. 9.8%, p = 0.002). There were no differences in hospital mortality between groups. CONCLUSION: Clinical manifestations of COVID-19 differ between older inpatients with and without dementia. We observed that dementia alone could not explain the higher short-term mortality following severe COVID-19. Therefore, clinicians should consider other risk factors such as acute morbidity severity and baseline frailty when evaluating the prognosis of older adults with dementia hospitalised with COVID-19.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19: evidence beyond the hype.

BACKGROUND: The role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 is still under debate, yet the drug has been widely used in some parts of the world, as shown by impressive market data. The available body of evidence may have changed over the last months, as studies have been retracted and "standards of care" (SOC) used in control groups have changed with rapidly evolving knowledge on COVID-19. This review aims to summarize and critically appraise the evidence of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ivermectin, assessing clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: RCTs evaluating the effects of ivermectin in adult patients with COVID-19 were searched through June 22, 2022, in four databases, L.OVE platform, clinical trial registries and pre-prints platforms. Primary endpoints included all-cause mortality and invasive ventilation requirement. Secondary endpoint was the occurrence of adverse events. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Meta-analysis included only studies which compared ivermectin to placebo or SOC. Random-effects were used to pool the risk ratios (RRs) of individual trials. The quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. The protocol was register in PROSPERO (CRD42021257471). RESULTS: Twenty-five RCTs fulfilled inclusion criteria (n = 6310). Of those, 14 compared ivermectin with placebo, in night ivermectin associated with SOC was compared to SOC and two studies compared ivermectin to an active comparator. Most RCTs had some concerns or high risk of bias, mostly due to lack of concealment of the randomization sequence and allocation, lack of blinding and high number of missing cases. Ivermectin did not show an effect in reducing mortality (RR = 0.76; 95%CI: 0.52-1.11) or mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.74; 95%CI: 0.48-1.16). This effect was consistent when comparing ivermectin vs. placebo, and ivermectin associated with SOC vs. SOC, as well as in sensitivity analysis. Additionally, there was very low quality of evidence regarding adverse effects (RR = 1.07; 95%CI: 0.84-1.35). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that ivermectin does not reduce mortality risk and the risk of mechanical ventilation requirement. Although we did not observe an increase in the risk of adverse effects, the evidence is very uncertain regarding this endpoint.

Implementation of a text messaging intervention to patients on warfarin therapy in Brazilian primary care units: a quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Warfarin remains the most affordable oral anticoagulant in many countries. However, it may have serious side effects, and the success of the therapy depends on the patient's understanding of the medication and their adherence to treatment. The use of short messages services (SMS) is a strategy that can be used to educate patients, but there are no studies evaluating this intervention in patients taking warfarin. Therefore, we aimed to develop, implement, and assess the feasibility of an intervention using SMS to primary care patients taking warfarin in a medium-sized Brazilian city. METHODS: A bank of 79 SMS was drafted and validated by an expert panel. During 6 months, three times a week, patients received messages about anticoagulation with warfarin. At baseline and after 3 months, we assessed their knowledge and adherence with validated instruments. At the end of the follow-up, participants answered a satisfaction questionnaire. Subsequently, a scale-up phase was conducted, with another round of the intervention including 82 participants (29 from the first phase and 53 newly recruited). Seven months after the end of the scale-up, we asked the patients for their insights about the long-term effects of this program. All patients signed informed consent. The study was approved by the Research and Ethics committee of the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. RESULTS: In the pilot, 33 (89.2%) patients completed the follow-up. Among the participants who answered the satisfaction questionnaire (n = 29), 86.2% considered that the intervention motivated a healthy lifestyle and improved their understanding of warfarin therapy. All patients were willing to continue receiving the messages. Adherence measured by the Measure of Adherence to Treatment (MAT) test was high in the pre-intervention assessment and remained high (96.7% vs. 93.3%; p = 1.0000). The proportion of patients who achieved > 75% correct answers on the Oral Anticoagulation Knowledge (OAK) test increased from 6.5% to 25.6, p = 0.0703. In the scale-up, 23 patients answered the long-term assessment questionnaire. The main long-term knowledge reported was dietary information. Nine patients received the messages but did not remember their content. CONCLUSION: The intervention was well-accepted and had a positive impact on patient's knowledge about oral anticoagulation therapy. The scale-up assessment reinforced the need to constantly monitor digital interventions.

Orthopedic Asynchronous Teleconsultation for Primary Care Patients by a Large-Scale Telemedicine Service in Minas Gerais, Brazil.

Background: Telemedicine was implemented in Brazil as a way to support primary health care (PHC). Orthopedic complaints are common in PHC, and, because musculoskeletal diseases are the most frequent causes of chronic pain, it is important to explore knowledge gaps of PHC as well as to understand the teleconsultations' impact on reducing referrals to secondary care. Materials and Methods: Observational, retrospective study that analyzed consecutive orthopedic asynchronous teleconsultations from the Telehealth Network of Minas Gerais, a large-scale public telehealth service, performed from September 17, 2013 to June 18, 2020. Teleconsultations were analyzed based on the type of query. Results: Throughout the study, 1,174 teleconsultations from 254 municipalities were analyzed. Most requests for teleconsultations were from nurses (37.8%) and physicians (48.7%). In 58.3%, challenges could be solved by a general practitioner, meanwhile 38.4% needed referral to an orthopedic specialist. Most queries related to a specific case (assistencial teleconsultation, 66.0%), and the others were classified as educational (34%). With regard to the motivation for the assistencial teleconsultations, 72% approached treatment options, 49.5% surrounded possible diagnosis, and 20.1% discussed patient's rehabilitation. In addition, 95.5% of requests could be solved by teleconsultation, without the need for referral to in-person consultation with the specialist. Conclusions: Teleconsultations can help investigate the most frequent queries in PHC. Most of them were solved without the need for referral, showing the potential of teleconsultations in daily practice as a way to manage patients and guarantee better access to first-rate health care. As for the public health system, teleconsultations represent a way to overcome the distance barrier to health care access.