In-Hospital influenza vaccination to prevent cardiorespiratory events in the first 45 days after acute coronary syndrome: A prespecified analysis of the VIP-ACS trial.

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination prevents major cardiovascular events in individuals presenting a recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS), however the early effect of an in-hospital double-dose vaccination strategy remains uncertain. METHODS: The VIP-ACS was a randomized, pragmatic, multicenter, open-label trial with a blinded-adjudication endpoint. Patients with ACS ≤ 7 days of hospitalization were randomized to an in-hospital double-dose quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (double-dose) or a standard-dose influenza vaccine at 30 days post-randomization. The primary endpoint was a hierarchical composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, hospitalization for heart failure, urgent coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for respiratory infections, analyzed with the win ratio (WR) method in short-term follow-up (45-days after randomization). RESULTS: The trial enrolled 1,801 patients (≥18 years old). Median participant age was 57 years, 70 % were male. There were no significant differences between groups on the primary hierarchical endpoint: there were 5.7 % wins in the double-dose in-hospital group and 5.5 % wins in the standard-dose delayed vaccination group (WR: 1.03; 95 % CI: 0.70---1.53; P = 0.85). In a sensitivity analysis including COVID-19 infection in the hospitalizations for respiratory infections endpoint, overall results were maintained (WR: 1.03; 95 % CI 0.71---1.51; P = 0.87). Results were consistent for major cardiovascular events only (WR: 0.82; 95 % CI: 0.48---1.39; P = 0.46). No serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: In patients with recent ACS, in-hospital double-dose influenza vaccination did not significantly reduce cardiorespiratory events at 45 days compared with standard-dose vaccination at 30 days post-randomization.

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.

COVID-19-associated coagulopathy and acute kidney injury in critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVE: The incidence of thrombotic events and acute kidney injury is high in critically ill patients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate and compare the coagulation profiles of patients with COVID-19 developing acute kidney injury versus those who did not, during their intensive care unit stay. METHODS: Conventional coagulation and platelet function tests, fibrinolysis, endogenous inhibitors of coagulation tests, and rotational thromboelastometry were conducted on days 0, 1, 3, 7, and 14 following intensive care unit admission. RESULTS: Out of 30 patients included, 13 (43.4%) met the criteria for acute kidney injury. Comparing both groups, patients with acute kidney injury were older: 73 (60-84) versus 54 (47-64) years, p=0.027, and had a lower baseline glomerular filtration rate: 70 (51-81) versus 93 (83-106) mL/min/1.73m2, p=0.004. On day 1, D-dimer and fibrinogen levels were elevated but similar between groups: 1780 (1319-5517) versus 1794 (726-2324) ng/mL, p=0.145 and 608 (550-700) versus 642 (469-722) g/dL, p=0.95, respectively. Rotational thromboelastometry data were also similar between groups. However, antithrombin activity and protein C levels were lower in patients who developed acute kidney injury: 82 (75-92) versus 98 (90-116), p=0.028 and 70 (52-82) versus 88 (78-101) µ/mL, p=0.038, respectively. Mean protein C levels were lower in the group with acute kidney injury across multiple time points during their stay in the intensive care unit. CONCLUSION: Critically ill patients experiencing acute kidney injury exhibited lower endogenous anticoagulant levels. Further studies are needed to understand the role of natural anticoagulants in the pathophysiology of acute kidney injury within this population.

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.

COVID-19-associated coagulopathy and acute kidney injury in critically ill patients

ABSTRACT Objective The incidence of thrombotic events and acute kidney injury is high in critically ill patients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate and compare the coagulation profiles of patients with COVID-19 developing acute kidney injury versus those who did not, during their intensive care unit stay. Methods Conventional coagulation and platelet function tests, fibrinolysis, endogenous inhibitors of coagulation tests, and rotational thromboelastometry were conducted on days 0, 1, 3, 7, and 14 following intensive care unit admission. Results Out of 30 patients included, 13 (43.4%) met the criteria for acute kidney injury. Comparing both groups, patients with acute kidney injury were older: 73 (60-84) versus 54 (47-64) years, p=0.027, and had a lower baseline glomerular filtration rate: 70 (51-81) versus 93 (83-106) mL/min/1.73m2, p=0.004. On day 1, D-dimer and fibrinogen levels were elevated but similar between groups: 1780 (1319-5517) versus 1794 (726-2324) ng/mL, p=0.145 and 608 (550-700) versus 642 (469-722) g/dL, p=0.95, respectively. Rotational thromboelastometry data were also similar between groups. However, antithrombin activity and protein C levels were lower in patients who developed acute kidney injury: 82 (75-92) versus 98 (90-116), p=0.028 and 70 (52-82) versus 88 (78-101) µ/mL, p=0.038, respectively. Mean protein C levels were lower in the group with acute kidney injury across multiple time points during their stay in the intensive care unit. Conclusion Critically ill patients experiencing acute kidney injury exhibited lower endogenous anticoagulant levels. Further studies are needed to understand the role of natural anticoagulants in the pathophysiology of acute kidney injury within this population.

Brazilian Psychiatric Association Consensus for the Management of Acute Intoxication. General management and specific interventions for drugs of abuse.

OBJECTIVE: To present the Brazilian Psychiatric Association's Consensus for the Management of Acute Intoxication. METHODS: A group of experts selected by the Brazilian Psychiatric Association searched for articles in the MEDLINE (by PubMed) and Cochrane Database, limited to human studies and acute intoxication. Groups reviewed these materials for appropriateness to the topic and the quality of the work. To perform a table of agreed recommendations at the end of the systematic review, a survey using the Delphi method was conducted. Three survey rounds were conducted to develop a consensus. RESULTS: Support for intoxication may start with Initial Management: Resuscitation/Life Support/Differential Diagnosis. For that, the group proposed these orders of assessment: A (airway), B (breathing), C (circulation), D.1. (disability), D.2. (differential diagnosis), D.3. (decontamination), D.4. (drug antidotes), E (enhanced elimination). Then, the group of experts presented specific interventions for the main drugs of abuse. CONCLUSIONS: The approach to intoxication with drugs of abuse is complex and requires systematic protocols. The group of experts suggested the adoption of the classic use in welcoming the patient of the A-B-C-D-E technique with constant investigation of this patient until reaching a specific conduct and with the support to remit the picture. The group of experts believes that this document, at this time, can help psychiatric, general, and emergency doctors deal with psychiatric emergency episodes due to acute intoxication.

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.

A nationwide survey on health resources and clinical practices during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. / Estudo nacional sobre recursos da saúde e práticas clínicas durante o início da pandemia da COVID-19 no Brasil.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical practices and hospital resource organization during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. METHODS: This was a multicenter, cross-sectional survey. An electronic questionnaire was provided to emergency department and intensive care unit physicians attending COVID-19 patients. The survey comprised four domains: characteristics of the participants, clinical practices, COVID-19 treatment protocols and hospital resource organization. RESULTS: Between May and June 2020, 284 participants [median (interquartile ranges) age 39 (33 - 47) years, 56.3% men] responded to the survey; 33% were intensivists, and 9% were emergency medicine specialists. Half of the respondents worked in public hospitals. Noninvasive ventilation (89% versus 73%; p = 0.001) and highflow nasal cannula (49% versus 32%; p = 0.005) were reported to be more commonly available in private hospitals than in public hospitals. Mechanical ventilation was more commonly used in public hospitals than private hospitals (70% versus 50%; p = 0,024). In the Emergency Departments, positive endexpiratory pressure was most commonly adjusted according to SpO2, while in the intensive care units, positive end-expiratory pressure was adjusted according to the best lung compliance. In the Emergency Departments, 25% of the respondents did not know how to set positive end-expiratory pressure. Compared to private hospitals, public hospitals had a lower availability of protocols for personal protection equipment during tracheal intubation (82% versus 94%; p = 0.005), managing mechanical ventilation [64% versus 75%; p = 0.006] and weaning patients from mechanical ventilation [34% versus 54%; p = 0.002]. Finally, patients spent less time in the emergency department before being transferred to the intensive care unit in private hospitals than in public hospitals [2 (1 - 3) versus 5 (2 - 24) hours; p < 0.001]. CONCLUSION: This survey revealed significant heterogeneity in the organization of hospital resources, clinical practices and treatments among physicians during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil.

OBJETIVO: Avaliar as práticas clínicas e a organização dos recursos hospitalares durante o início da pandemia da COVID-19 no Brasil. METÓDOS: Foi realizado um estudo transversal multicêntrico. Um questionário on-line foi disponibilizado a médicos dos serviços de emergência e das unidades de terapia intensiva que atendiam pacientes com COVID-19. O questionário contemplava quatro aspectos: perfil dos participantes, práticas clínicas, protocolos de tratamento da COVID-19 e organização dos recursos hospitalares. RESULTADOS: Entre maio e junho de 2020, 284 participantes (56,3% homens), com idade mediana de 39 (intervalo interquartil de 33 - 47), responderam ao questionário; 33% eram intensivistas e 9% eram especialistas em medicina de emergência. Metade dos respondentes trabalhava em hospitais públicos. Verificou-se que a ventilação não invasiva (89% versus 73%; p = 0,001) e a cânula nasal de alto fluxo (49% versus 32%; p = 0,005) encontravam-se mais frequentemente disponíveis em hospitais privados do que nos públicos. A ventilação mecânica foi mais frequentemente utilizada em hospitais públicos do que em privados (70% versus 50%; p = 0,024). Nos serviços de emergência, a pressão positiva expiratória final foi mais frequentemente ajustada de acordo com a saturação de oxigênio, enquanto nas unidades de terapia intensiva, a pressão positiva expiratória final foi ajustada de acordo com a melhor complacência pulmonar. Nos serviços de emergência, 25% dos respondentes não sabiam como ajustar a pressão positiva expiratória final. Comparativamente aos hospitais privados, os hospitais públicos tiveram menor disponibilidade de protocolos para Equipamentos de Proteção Individual durante a intubação traqueal (82% versus 94%; p = 0,005), o manejo da ventilação mecânica (64% versus 75%; p = 0,006) e o desmame dos pacientes da ventilação mecânica (34% versus 54%; p = 0,002). Finalmente, os pacientes passaram menos tempo no serviço de emergência antes de serem transferidos à unidade de terapia intensiva em hospitais privados do que em hospitais públicos (idade mediana de 2 (1 - 3) versus idade mediana de 5 (2 - 24) horas; p < 0,001). CONCLUSÃO: Este estudo revelou heterogeneidade considerável entre os médicos em termos de organização dos recursos hospitalares, práticas clínicas e tratamentos durante o início da pandemia da COVID-19 no Brasil.

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.

Estudo nacional sobre recursos da saúde e práticas clínicas durante o início da pandemia da COVID-19 no Brasil / A nationwide survey on health resources and clinical practices during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil

RESUMO Objetivo: Avaliar as práticas clínicas e a organização dos recursos hospitalares durante o início da pandemia da COVID-19 no Brasil. Metódos: Foi realizado um estudo transversal multicêntrico. Um questionário on-line foi disponibilizado a médicos dos serviços de emergência e das unidades de terapia intensiva que atendiam pacientes com COVID-19. O questionário contemplava quatro aspectos: perfil dos participantes, práticas clínicas, protocolos de tratamento da COVID-19 e organização dos recursos hospitalares. Resultados: Entre maio e junho de 2020, 284 participantes (56,3% homens), com idade mediana de 39 (intervalo interquartil de 33 - 47), responderam ao questionário; 33% eram intensivistas e 9% eram especialistas em medicina de emergência. Metade dos respondentes trabalhava em hospitais públicos. Verificou-se que a ventilação não invasiva (89% versus 73%; p = 0,001) e a cânula nasal de alto fluxo (49% versus 32%; p = 0,005) encontravam-se mais frequentemente disponíveis em hospitais privados do que nos públicos. A ventilação mecânica foi mais frequentemente utilizada em hospitais públicos do que em privados (70% versus 50%; p = 0,024). Nos serviços de emergência, a pressão positiva expiratória final foi mais frequentemente ajustada de acordo com a saturação de oxigênio, enquanto nas unidades de terapia intensiva, a pressão positiva expiratória final foi ajustada de acordo com a melhor complacência pulmonar. Nos serviços de emergência, 25% dos respondentes não sabiam como ajustar a pressão positiva expiratória final. Comparativamente aos hospitais privados, os hospitais públicos tiveram menor disponibilidade de protocolos para Equipamentos de Proteção Individual durante a intubação traqueal (82% versus 94%; p = 0,005), o manejo da ventilação mecânica (64% versus 75%; p = 0,006) e o desmame dos pacientes da ventilação mecânica (34% versus 54%; p = 0,002). Finalmente, os pacientes passaram menos tempo no serviço de emergência antes de serem transferidos à unidade de terapia intensiva em hospitais privados do que em hospitais públicos (idade mediana de 2 (1 - 3) versus idade mediana de 5 (2 - 24) horas; p < 0,001). Conclusão: Este estudo revelou heterogeneidade considerável entre os médicos em termos de organização dos recursos hospitalares, práticas clínicas e tratamentos durante o início da pandemia da COVID-19 no Brasil.

ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate clinical practices and hospital resource organization during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. Methods: This was a multicenter, cross-sectional survey. An electronic questionnaire was provided to emergency department and intensive care unit physicians attending COVID-19 patients. The survey comprised four domains: characteristics of the participants, clinical practices, COVID-19 treatment protocols and hospital resource organization. Results: Between May and June 2020, 284 participants [median (interquartile ranges) age 39 (33 - 47) years, 56.3% men] responded to the survey; 33% were intensivists, and 9% were emergency medicine specialists. Half of the respondents worked in public hospitals. Noninvasive ventilation (89% versus 73%; p = 0.001) and highflow nasal cannula (49% versus 32%; p = 0.005) were reported to be more commonly available in private hospitals than in public hospitals. Mechanical ventilation was more commonly used in public hospitals than private hospitals (70% versus 50%; p = 0,024). In the Emergency Departments, positive endexpiratory pressure was most commonly adjusted according to SpO2, while in the intensive care units, positive end-expiratory pressure was adjusted according to the best lung compliance. In the Emergency Departments, 25% of the respondents did not know how to set positive end-expiratory pressure. Compared to private hospitals, public hospitals had a lower availability of protocols for personal protection equipment during tracheal intubation (82% versus 94%; p = 0.005), managing mechanical ventilation [64% versus 75%; p = 0.006] and weaning patients from mechanical ventilation [34% versus 54%; p = 0.002]. Finally, patients spent less time in the emergency department before being transferred to the intensive care unit in private hospitals than in public hospitals [2 (1 - 3) versus 5 (2 - 24) hours; p < 0.001]. Conclusion: This survey revealed significant heterogeneity in the organization of hospital resources, clinical practices and treatments among physicians during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil.

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.

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)

ABSTRACT 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.

Coagulation profile of COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU: An exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: Coagulation abnormalities in COVID-19 patients have not been addressed in depth. OBJECTIVE: To perform a longitudinal evaluation of coagulation profile of patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. METHODS: Conventional coagulation tests, rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM), platelet function, fibrinolysis, antithrombin, protein C and S were measured at days 0, 1, 3, 7 and 14. Based on median total maximum SOFA score, patients were divided in two groups: SOFA ≤ 10 and SOFA > 10. RESULTS: Thirty patients were studied. Some conventional coagulation tests, as aPTT, PT and INR remained unchanged during the study period, while alterations on others coagulation laboratory tests were detected. Fibrinogen levels were increased in both groups. ROTEM maximum clot firmness increased in both groups from Day 0 to Day 14. Moreover, ROTEM-FIBTEM maximum clot firmness was high in both groups, with a slight decrease from day 0 to day 14 in group SOFA ≤ 10 and a slight increase during the same period in group SOFA > 10. Fibrinolysis was low and decreased over time in all groups, with the most pronounced decrease observed in INTEM maximum lysis in group SOFA > 10. Also, D-dimer plasma levels were higher than normal reference range in both groups and free protein S plasma levels were low in both groups at baseline and increased over time, Finally, patients in group SOFA > 10 had lower plasminogen levels and Protein C ​​than patients with SOFA <10, which may represent less fibrinolysis activity during a state of hypercoagulability. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 patients have a pronounced hypercoagulability state, characterized by impaired endogenous anticoagulation and decreased fibrinolysis. The magnitude of coagulation abnormalities seems to correlate with the severity of organ dysfunction. The hypercoagulability state of COVID-19 patients was not only detected by ROTEM but it much more complex, where changes were observed on the fibrinolytic and endogenous anticoagulation system.

Covid-19 telescreening in SUS users with risk conditions: case report.

This case report aims to describe the conception and preliminary data of the implementation of a telescreening and telemonitoring program of covid-19 for users of the Unified Health System with risk conditions. A system of telerscreening was implemented through which undergraduate students in the health area contact patients by telephone, according to periodicity and predefined criteria, to monitor the evolution of the condition. In eight weeks, 2,190 attempts at remote contact were made with individuals from five health units. The effective number of individuals monitored at the time this writing is 802.