Interleukin-6 blocking agents for treating COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It has been reported that people with COVID-19 and pre-existing autoantibodies against type I interferons are likely to develop an inflammatory cytokine storm responsible for severe respiratory symptoms. Since interleukin 6 (IL-6) is one of the cytokines released during this inflammatory process, IL-6 blocking agents have been used for treating people with severe COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To update the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to a placebo for people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Living OVerview of Evidence (L·OVE) platform, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify studies on 7 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of researchers independently conducted study selection, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for all critical and important outcomes. In this update we amended our protocol to update the methods used for grading evidence by establishing minimal important differences for the critical outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: This update includes 22 additional trials, for a total of 32 trials including 12,160 randomized participants all hospitalized for COVID-19 disease. We identified a further 17 registered RCTs evaluating IL-6 blocking agents without results available as of 7 June 2022.  The mean age range varied from 56 to 75 years; 66.2% (8051/12,160) of enrolled participants were men. One-third (11/32) of included trials were placebo-controlled. Twenty-two were published in peer-reviewed journals, three were reported as preprints, two trials had results posted only on registries, and results from five trials were retrieved from another meta-analysis. Eight were funded by pharmaceutical companies.  Twenty-six included studies were multicenter trials; four were multinational and 22 took place in single countries. Recruitment of participants occurred between February 2020 and June 2021, with a mean enrollment duration of 21 weeks (range 1 to 54 weeks). Nineteen trials (60%) had a follow-up of 60 days or more. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The proportion of participants who were intubated at study inclusion also varied from 5% to 95%. Only six trials reported vaccination status; there were no vaccinated participants included in these trials, and 17 trials were conducted before vaccination was rolled out. We assessed a total of six treatments, each compared to placebo or standard care. Twenty trials assessed tocilizumab, nine assessed sarilumab, and two assessed clazakizumab. Only one trial was included for each of the other IL-6 blocking agents (siltuximab, olokizumab, and levilimab). Two trials assessed more than one treatment. Efficacy and safety of tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 At day (D) 28, tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement (tocilizumab: risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.11; 15 RCTs, 6116 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; sarilumab: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 2425 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For clinical improvement at ≥ D60, the certainty of evidence is very low for both tocilizumab (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.48; 1 RCT, 97 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and sarilumab (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.63; 2 RCTs, 239 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score (WHO-CPS) of level 7 or above remains uncertain at D28 (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 13 RCTs, 2117 participants; low-certainty evidence) and that for sarilumab very uncertain (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.33; 5 RCTs, 886 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab reduces all cause-mortality at D28 compared to standard care/placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94; 18 RCTs, 7428 participants; high-certainty evidence). The evidence about the effect of sarilumab on this outcome is very uncertain (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30; 9 RCTs, 3305 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain for all cause-mortality at ≥ D60 for tocilizumab (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.04; 9 RCTs, 2775 participants; low-certainty evidence) and very uncertain for sarilumab (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; 6 RCTs, 3379 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab probably results in little to no difference in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 9 RCTs, 1811 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence about adverse events for sarilumab is uncertain (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.28; 4 RCT, 860 participants; low-certainty evidence).  The evidence about serious adverse events is very uncertain for tocilizumab (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; 16 RCTs; 2974 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and uncertain for sarilumab (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21; 6 RCTs; 2936 participants; low-certainty evidence). Efficacy and safety of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab and levilimab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 The evidence about the effects of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab, and levilimab comes from only one or two studies for each blocking agent, and is uncertain or very uncertain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized people with COVID-19, results show a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on all-cause mortality in the short term and probably little or no difference in the risk of adverse events compared to standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, both tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28. Evidence for an effect of sarilumab and the other IL-6 blocking agents on critical outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. Most of the trials included in our review were done before the waves of different variants of concern and before vaccination was rolled out on a large scale. An additional 17 RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents are currently registered with no results yet reported. The number of pending studies and the number of participants planned is low. Consequently, we will not publish further updates of this review.

The BIGG-REC database makes available all WHO/PAHO evidence informed recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: To build and maintain a living database of the Pan American Health Organization/World Health Organization (PAHO/WHO) recommendations developed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Guidelines are identified from WHO and PAHO databases. We periodically extract recommendations, according to the health and well-being targets of sustainable development goal 3 (SDG-3). RESULTS: As of March 2022, the International database of GRADE guidelines (https://bigg-rec.bvsalud.org/en) database hosted 2,682 recommendations contained in 285 WHO/PAHO guidelines. Recommendations were classified as follows: communicable diseases (1,581), children's health (1,182), universal health (1,171), sexual and reproductive health (910), noncommunicable diseases (677), maternal health (654), COVID-19 (224), use of psychoactive substances (99), tobacco (14) and road and traffic accidents (16). International database of GRADE guidelines allows searching by SDG-3, condition or disease, type of intervention, institution, year of publication, and age. CONCLUSION: Recommendation maps provide an important resource for health professionals, organizations and member states that use evidence-informed guidance to make better decisions, providing a source for the adoption or adaptation of recommendations to meet their needs. This one-stop shop database of evidence-informed recommendations built with intuitive functionalities undoubtedly represents a long-needed tool for decision-makers, guideline developers, and the public at large.

Cánula Nasal de Alto Flujo en Adultos con Enfermedades Respiratorias Crónicas durante el Ejercicio Físico: Protocolo de Revisión Sistemática y Metaanálisis / High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Adults with Chronic Respiratory Diseases during Physical Exercise: A Protocol Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Introducción. El entrenamiento físico puede mejorar la capacidad de ejercicio, la disnea y la calidad de vida (CV) en pacientes con enfermedades respiratorias crónicas (ERC). En este contexto, el uso de oxígeno suplementario a través de una cánula nasal de alto flujo (CNAF) podría ser un dispositivo que permita tolerar mayores niveles de actividad con menos síntomas de esfuerzo físico, optimizando en última instancia la capacidad de ejercicio y la CV. Objetivo. Este protocolo pretende conducir una revisión sistemática para evaluar el efecto terapéutico de la CNAF durante el ejercicio físico en pacientes con ERC. Fuente de búsqueda. Se realizarán búsquedas en el Registro Cochrane Central de Ensayos Controlados (CENTRAL), PUBMED, Embase, Lilacs, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov y literatura gris. Criterios de elegibilidad. Examinaremos los ECA de acuerdo con los criterios de elegibilidad para su inclusión en nuestra revisión. Dos revisores examinarán de forma independiente cada estudio para la elegibilidad, la extracción de datos y la evaluación del riesgo de sesgo. Se combinarán los resultados mediante un metanálisis y se aplicará el sistema GRADE para evaluar la certeza de las pruebas para cada resultado. La medida de resultado primaria será la capacidad de ejercicio, y las medidas de resultado secundarias serán la calidad de vida, la disnea, la funcionalidad, la comodidad, las complicaciones y adherencia. Se realizarán metaanálisis para determinar la diferencia de medias (DM) o la DM estandarizada para los datos continuos y la razón de riesgo para los datos dicotómicos. Se realizarán análisis de subgrupos según los tipos y la gravedad de la enfermedad, las condiciones de ejercicio físico y el estado de los dispositivos de oxigenoterapia. Ética y difusión. Como los investigadores no accederán a información que pueda conducir a la identificación de un participante individual, no fue necesario a obtener aprobación ética. Número de registro de PROSPERO: CRD42022336263.

Background. Physical training can improve exercise capacity, dyspnoea, and quality of life (QoL) in patients with chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs). It has been suggested that using supplemental oxygen through a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) could lead to higher levels of activity to be tolerated with fewer symptoms of physical exertion, ultimately optimizing exercise capacity and QoL. Objective. To conduct a systematic review to assess the therapeutic effect of HFNC during physical exercise in patients with CRDs. We will search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PUBMED, Embase, Lilacs, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and grey literature. Eligibility criteria. We will examine RCTs according to the eligibility criteria for inclusion in our review. Two reviewers will independently examine each study for eligibility, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We will combine the results using meta-analysis and apply the GRADE system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. The primary outcome will be exercise capacity, and secondary outcomes will be QoL, dyspnoea, functionality, comfort, complications, and adherence. We will perform meta-analyses to determine the mean difference (MD) or standardized MD for continuous data and the risk ratio for dichotomous data. Subgroup analyses will be performed according to types and severity of disease, physical exercise conditions, and condition of oxygen therapy devices. Ethics and Dissemination. As researchers will not access information that could lead to the identification of an individual participant, obtaining ethical approval was waived. Prospero registration number: CRD42022336263.

The clinical utility of polygenic risk scores in genomic medicine practices: a systematic review.

Genomic medicine aims to improve health using the individual genomic data of people to inform care. While clinical utility of genomic medicine in many monogenic, Mendelian disorders is amply demonstrated, clinical utility is less evident in polygenic traits, e.g., coronary artery disease or breast cancer. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are subsets of individual genotypes designed to capture heritability of common traits, and hence to allow the stratification of risk of the trait in a population. We systematically reviewed the PubMed database for unequivocal evidence of clinical utility of polygenic risk scores, using stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria. While we identified studies demonstrating clinical validity in conditions where medical intervention based on a PRS is likely to benefit patient outcome, we did not identify a single study demonstrating unequivocally such a benefit, i.e. clinical utility. We conclude that while the routine use of PRSs hold great promise, translational research is still needed before they should enter mainstream clinical practice.

Effects of screening strategies to detect carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to summarize the evidence on the effects of screening strategies to detect carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria (Enterobacteriaceae, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa). METHODS: Eligible studies were randomized trials, non-randomized controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series. We conducted searches in CENTRAL, PUBMED, Embase, Epistemonikos, and in multiple databases available in the Virtual Health Library (LILACS, Scielo, WHO IBECS, and PAHO IBECS). All the searches covered the period until 4 June 2021. No date or language restrictions were applied. Two reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible studies according to predefined selection criteria, and extracted data on study characteristics, methods, outcomes, and risk of bias, using a predesigned standardized form. When possible, we intended to conduct meta-analyses using a random-effect model. We assessed the certainty of the evidence (CoE) and summarized the results using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Our search strategy yielded 57,451 references. No randomized trials were identified. Sixteen studies (one controlled before-after study and 15 interrupted time series) met our inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Most studies were conducted in tertiary care general hospitals from the United States, Europe, and Asia. Eleven studies included adult patients hospitalized in general wards and intensive care units, one was carried out in a neonatal intensive care unit, two in hematology or oncology units, and one in a solid organ transplantation department. Eleven studies were conducted in the setting of an outbreak. Regarding the detection strategy used, all studies included screening strategies for high-risk patients at the moment of admission and 7 studies reported a contact surveillance strategy. Most studies were conducted in settings where infection prevention and control measures were concomitantly installed or reinforced. Data were not suitable for meta-analysis, so the results were presented as a narrative synthesis. Most studies showed a decline in the prevalence of both infection and colonization rates after the implementation of a policy of active surveillance, but the CoE is low. Screening strategies may result in little to no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality and the length of hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence may favor the use of surveillance culture to carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria, but its quality is poor, so solid conclusions cannot be drawn. Well-conducted randomized trials or high-quality quasi-experimental studies are needed to improve the certainty of the existing evidence. These studies should assess the effect of the addition of screening strategies as a single intervention and measure clinically important outcomes such as infection, length of hospital stay, and mortality.

Stem cell therapy for dilated cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Stem cell therapy (SCT) has been proposed as an alternative treatment for dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), nonetheless its effectiveness remains debatable. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of SCT in adults with non-ischaemic DCM. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and Embase for relevant trials in November 2020. We also searched two clinical trials registers in May 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing stem/progenitor cells with no cells in adults with non-ischaemic DCM. We included co-interventions such as the administration of stem cell mobilizing agents. Studies were classified and analysed into three categories according to the comparison intervention, which consisted of no intervention/placebo, cell mobilization with cytokines, or a different mode of SCT. The first two comparisons (no cells in the control group) served to assess the efficacy of SCT while the third (different mode of SCT) served to complement the review with information about safety and other information of potential utility for a better understanding of the effects of SCT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all references for eligibility, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We undertook a quantitative evaluation of data using random-effects meta-analyses. We evaluated heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We could not explore potential effect modifiers through subgroup analyses as they were deemed uninformative due to the scarce number of trials available. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We created summary of findings tables using GRADEpro GDT. We focused our summary of findings on all-cause mortality, safety, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), performance status, and major adverse cardiovascular events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs involving 762 participants (452 cell therapy and 310 controls). Only one study was at low risk of bias in all domains. There were many shortcomings in the publications that did not allow a precise assessment of the risk of bias in many domains. Due to the nature of the intervention, the main source of potential bias was lack of blinding of participants (performance bias). Frequently, the format of the continuous data available was not ideal for use in the meta-analysis and forced us to seek strategies for transforming data in a usable format. We are uncertain whether SCT reduces all-cause mortality in people with DCM compared to no intervention/placebo (mean follow-up 12 months) (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.31; I² = 0%; studies = 7, participants = 361; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether SCT increases the risk of procedural complications associated with cells injection in people with DCM (data could not be pooled; studies = 7; participants = 361; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether SCT improves HRQoL (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.62, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.23; I² = 72%; studies = 5, participants = 272; very low-certainty evidence) and functional capacity (6-minute walk test) (mean difference (MD) 70.12 m, 95% CI -5.28 to 145.51; I² = 87%; studies = 5, participants = 230; very low-certainty evidence). SCT may result in a slight functional class (New York Heart Association) improvement (data could not be pooled; studies = 6, participants = 398; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported major adverse cardiovascular events as defined in our protocol. SCT may not increase the risk of ventricular arrhythmia (data could not be pooled; studies = 8, participants = 504; low-certainty evidence). When comparing SCT to cell mobilization with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), we are uncertain whether SCT reduces all-cause mortality (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.31; I² = 39%; studies = 3, participants = 195; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether SCT increases the risk of procedural complications associated with cells injection (studies = 1, participants = 60; very low-certainty evidence). SCT may not improve HRQoL (MD 4.61 points, 95% CI -5.62 to 14.83; studies = 1, participants = 22; low-certainty evidence). SCT may improve functional capacity (6-minute walk test) (MD 140.14 m, 95% CI 119.51 to 160.77; I² = 0%; studies = 2, participants = 155; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported MACE as defined in our protocol or ventricular arrhythmia. The most commonly reported outcomes across studies were based on physiological measures of cardiac function where there were some beneficial effects suggesting potential benefits of SCT in people with non-ischaemic DCM. However, it is unclear if this intermediate effects translates into clinical benefits for these patients. With regard to specific aspects related to the modality of cell therapy and its delivery, uncertainties remain as subgroup analyses could not be performed as planned, making it necessary to wait for the publication of several studies that are currently in progress before any firm conclusion can be reached. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether SCT in people with DCM reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and procedural complications, improves HRQoL, and performance status (exercise capacity). SCT may improve functional class (NYHA), compared to usual care (no cells). Similarly, when compared to G-CSF, we are also uncertain whether SCT in people with DCM reduces the risk of all-cause mortality although some studies within this comparison observed a favourable effect that should be interpreted with caution. SCT may not improve HRQoL but may improve to some extent performance status (exercise capacity). Very low-quality evidence reflects uncertainty regarding procedural complications. These suggested beneficial effects of SCT, although uncertain due to the very low certainty of the evidence, are accompanied by favourable effects on some physiological measures of cardiac function. Presently, the most effective mode of administration of SCT and the population that could benefit the most is unclear. Therefore, it seems reasonable that use of SCT in people with DCM is limited to clinical research settings. Results of ongoing studies are likely to modify these conclusions.

Pulmonary rehabilitation for COVID-19: a living systematic review protocol

Objective This living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of pulmonary rehabilitation in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Design This is the protocol of a living systematic review. Data sources We will conduct searches in the L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19, a system that maps PICO questions to a repository maintained through regular searches in electronic databases, preprint servers, trial registries and other resources relevant to COVID-19. No date or language restrictions will be applied. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methods We adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We will include randomized trials evaluating the effect of pulmonary rehabilitation as monotherapy or in combination with other interventions-versus sham or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Ethics and dissemination No ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.

Interleukin-6 blocking agents for treating COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Interleukin 6 (IL-6) blocking agents have been used for treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Their immunosuppressive effect might be valuable in patients with COVID-19 characterised by substantial immune system dysfunction by controlling inflammation and promoting disease tolerance. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or with placebo on efficacy and safety outcomes in COVID-19. We will update this assessment regularly. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (up to 11 February 2021) and the L-OVE platform, and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify trials up to 26 February 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. The protocol was amended to reduce the number of outcomes considered. Two review authors independently collected data and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence with the GRADE approach for the critical outcomes such as clinical improvement (defined as hospital discharge or improvement on the scale used by trialists to evaluate clinical progression or recovery) (day (D) 28 / ≥ D60); WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above (i.e. the proportion of participants with mechanical ventilation +/- additional organ support OR death) (D28 / ≥ D60); all-cause mortality (D28 / ≥ D60); incidence of any adverse events; and incidence of serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 RCTs with available data including one platform trial comparing tocilizumab and sarilumab with standard of care. These trials evaluated tocilizumab (nine RCTs including two platform trials; seven were reported as peer-reviewed articles, two as preprints; 6428 randomised participants); and two sarilumab (one platform trial reported as peer reviewed article, one reported as preprint, 880 randomised participants). All trials included were multicentre trials. They were conducted in Brazil, China, France, Italy, UK, USA, and four were multi-country trials. The mean age range of participants ranged from 56 to 65 years; 4572 (66.3%) of trial participants were male. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The reported proportion of participants on oxygen at baseline but not intubated varied from 56% to 100% where reported. Five trials reported the inclusion of intubated patients at baseline. We identified a further 20 registered RCTs of tocilizumab compared to placebo/standard care (five completed without available results, five terminated without available results, eight ongoing, two not recruiting); 11 RCTs of sarilumab (two completed without results, three terminated without available results, six ongoing); six RCTs of clazakisumab (five ongoing, one not recruiting); two RCTs of olokizumab (one completed, one not recruiting); one of siltuximab (ongoing) and one RCT of levilimab (completed without available results). Of note, three were cancelled (2 tocilizumab, 1 clazakisumab). One multiple-arm RCT evaluated both tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard of care, one three-arm RCT evaluated tocilizumab and siltuximab compared to standard of care and consequently they appear in each respective comparison. Tocilizumab versus standard care alone or with placebo a. Effectiveness of tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 Tocilizumab probably results in little or no increase in the outcome of clinical improvement at D28 (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13; I2 = 40.9%; 7 RCTs, 5585 participants; absolute effect: 31 more with clinical improvement per 1000 (from 0 fewer to 67 more); moderate-certainty evidence). However, we cannot exclude that some subgroups of patients could benefit from the treatment. We did not obtain data for longer-term follow-up (≥ D60). The effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level of 7 or above is uncertain at D28 (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.74; I2 = 64.4%; 3 RCTs, 712 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not obtain data for longer-term follow-up (≥ D60). Tocilizumab reduces all-cause mortality at D28 compared to standard care alone or placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; I2 = 0.0%; 8 RCTs, 6363 participants; absolute effect: 32 fewer deaths per 1000 (from 52 fewer to 9 fewer); high-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests uncertainty around the effect on mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.40; I2 = 0.0%; 2 RCTs, 519 participants; low-certainty evidence). b. Safety of tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tocilizumab on adverse events (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.72; I2 = 86.4%; 7 RCTs, 1534 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Nevertheless, tocilizumab probably results in slightly fewer serious adverse events than standard care alone or placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.06; I2 = 0.0%; 8 RCTs, 2312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Sarilumab versus standard care alone or with placebo The evidence is uncertain about the effect of sarilumab on all-cause mortality at D28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.36; 2 RCTs, 880 participants; low certainty), on all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.0; 1 RCT, 420 participants; low certainty), and serious adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.77; 2 RCTs, 880 participants; low certainty). It is unlikely that sarilumab results in an important increase of adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.25; 1 RCT, 420 participants; moderate certainty). However, an increase cannot be excluded No data were available for other critical outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: On average, tocilizumab reduces all-cause mortality at D28 compared to standard care alone or placebo and probably results in slightly fewer serious adverse events than standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, tocilizumab probably results in little or no increase in the outcome clinical improvement (defined as hospital discharge or improvement measured by trialist-defined scales) at D28. The impact of tocilizumab on other outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. With the data available, we were not able to explore heterogeneity. Individual patient data meta-analyses are needed to be able to identify which patients are more likely to benefit from this treatment. Evidence for an effect of sarilumab is uncertain and evidence for other anti-IL6 agents is unavailable. Thirty-nine RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents with no results are currently registered, of which nine are completed and seven trials were terminated with no results available. The findings of this review will be updated as new data are made available on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19: a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Provide a timely, rigorous and continuously updated summary of the evidence on the role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Eligible studies were randomized trials evaluating the effect of remdesivir versus placebo or no treatment. We conducted searches in the special L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19, a system that performs regular searches in databases, trial registries, preprint servers and websites relevant to COVID-19. All the searches covered the period until 25 August 2020. No date or language restrictions were applied. Two reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible studies according to predefined selection criteria, and extracted data on study characteristics, methods, outcomes, and risk of bias, using a predesigned, standardized form. We performed meta-analyses using random-effect models and assessed overall certainty in evidence using the GRADE approach. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Our search strategy yielded 574 references. Finally, we included three randomized trials evaluating remdesivir in addition to standard care versus standard care alone. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of remdesivir on mortality (RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.05; very low certainty evidence) and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.24; very low certainty evidence). On the other hand, remdesivir likely results in a large increase in the incidence of adverse effects in patients with COVID-19 (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.84; moderate certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is insufficient for the outcomes critical for making decisions on the role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients with COVID-19, so it is impossible to balance potential benefits, if there are any, with the adverse effects and costs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020183384.

Remdesivir para el tratamiento de COVID-19: una revisión sistemática viva / Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19: a living systematic review

OBJETIVO: Esta revisión sistemática viva tiene como objetivo entregar un resumen oportuno, riguroso y continuamente actualizado de la evidencia disponible sobre los efectos de remdesivir en pacientes con COVID-19. MÉTODOS: Se buscaron ensayos aleatorios que evaluaran el uso de remdesivir versus placebo o ningún tratamiento en pacientes con COVID-19. Se realizó una búsqueda en la plataforma L·OVE COVID-19 (Living OVerview of Evidence), un sistema que mantiene búsquedas regulares en bases de datos, registros de ensayos, servidores preprint y sitios web relevantes en COVID-19. Todas las búsquedas fueron realizadas hasta el 25 de agosto de 2020. No se aplicaron restricciones de fecha ni de idioma. Dos revisores evaluaron de forma independiente los artículos potencialmente elegibles, de acuerdo con criterios de selección predefinidos, y extrajeron los datos mediante un formulario estandarizado. Los resultados fueron combinados mediante un metanálisis utilizando modelos de efectos aleatorios y evaluamos la certeza de la evidencia utilizando el método GRADE. Una versión viva de esta revisión estará abiertamente disponible durante la pandemia de COVID-19. RESULTADOS: La búsqueda inicial arrojó 574 referencias. Finalmente, identificamos 3 ensayos aleatorios, que evaluaban el uso de remdesivir adicionado al tratamiento estándar versus tratamiento estándar. La evidencia es muy incierta acerca del efecto del remdesivir sobre la mortalidad (RR 0,7; IC del 95%: 0,46 a 1,05; certeza de la evidencia muy baja) y la necesidad de ventilación mecánica invasiva (RR 0,69; IC del 95%: 0,39 a 1,24; certeza de evidencia muy baja). Por otro lado, es probable que el uso de remdesivir produzca un aumento en la incidencia de efectos adversos en pacientes con COVID-19 (RR 1,29; IC del 95%: 0,58 a 2,84; evidencia de certeza moderada). CONCLUSIONES: La evidencia disponible sobre el papel del remdesivir en el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19 es insuficiente en relación a los desenlaces críticos para tomar decisiones, por lo que no es posible realizar un correcto balance entre los beneficios potenciales, los efectos adversos y los costos.

OBJECTIVE: Provide a timely, rigorous and continuously updated summary of the evidence on the role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Eligible studies were randomized trials evaluating the effect of remdesivir versus placebo or no treatment. We conducted searches in the special L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19, a system that performs regular searches in databases, trial registries, preprint servers and websites relevant to COVID-19. All the searches covered the period until 25 August 2020. No date or language restrictions were applied. Two reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible studies according to predefined selection criteria, and extracted data on study characteristics, methods, outcomes, and risk of bias, using a predesigned, standardized form. We performed meta-analyses using random-effect models and assessed overall certainty in evidence using the GRADE approach. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Our search strategy yielded 574 references. Finally, we included three randomized trials evaluating remdesivir in addition to standard care versus standard care alone. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of remdesivir on mortality (RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.05; very low certainty evidence) and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.24; very low certainty evidence). On the other hand, remdesivir likely results in a large increase in the incidence of adverse effects in patients with COVID-19 (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.84; moderate certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is insufficient for the outcomes critical for making decisions on the role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients with COVID-19, so it is impossible to balance potential benefits, if there are any, with the adverse effects and costs.

Macrólidos para el tratamiento de COVID-19: una revisión sistemática viva / Macrolides for the treatment of COVID-19: a living, systematic review

OBJETIVO Proporcionar un resumen oportuno, riguroso y continuamente actualizado de la evidencia disponible sobre el papel de los macrólidos para el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19. DIDEÑO Revisión Sistemática Viva. BASE DE DATOS: La búsqueda de evidencia se realizó en el repositorio centralizado L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) COVID-19; una plataforma que mapea las preguntas PICO para identificar la evidencia en la base de datos Epistemonikos. En respuesta a la emergencia de COVID-19, L·OVE se adaptó para ampliar el rango de evidencia que cubre y hoy se mantiene a través de búsquedas regulares en 39 bases de datos. MÉTODOS: Se incluyeron estudios experimentales que evaluaban el efecto de los macrólidos, como monoterapia o en combinación con otros fármacos, versus placebo o ningún tratamiento en pacientes con sospecha o confirmación de COVID-19. Se buscó identificar experimentos clínicos aleatorizados que evaluaran macrólidos en infecciones causadas por otros coronavirus, como MERS-CoV y SARS-CoV. Dos revisores examinaron de forma independiente la elegibilidad de cada estudio, extrajeron los datos y evaluaron el riesgo de sesgo. Se evaluó el efecto de los macrólidos sobre la mortalidad por todas las causas; necesidad de ventilación mecánica invasiva; oxigenación por membrana extracorpórea, duración de la estancia hospitalaria, insuficiencia respiratoria, eventos adversos graves, tiempo hasta la negatividad de la RT-PCR del SARS-CoV-2. La certeza de la evidencia para cada desenlace se evaluó siguiendo la aproximación GRADE. Esta revisión se mantendrá viva y disponible abiertamente durante la pandemia de COVID-19. Se someterán actualizaciones de su publicación cada vez que cambien las conclusiones o cuando haya actualizaciones sustanciales. RESULTADOS: Se identificó un experimento clínico aleatorio que evaluó el uso de azitromicina en combinación con hidroxicloroquina en comparación con el uso de hidroxicloroquina sola, en pacientes hospitalizados por COVID 19. Las estimaciones para todos los resultados evaluados resultaron en un poder estadístico insuficiente para llegar a conclusiones válidas. La calidad de la evidencia para los resultados principales fue baja a muy baja. CONCLUSIONES: El uso de macrólidos en el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID 19 no ha mostrado efectos beneficiosos en comparación con el tratamiento estándar. La evidencia para todos los desenlaces no es concluyente. Se necesitan estudios sobre un mayor número de pacientes con COVID 19, para determinar los efectos del uso de macrólidos sobre los desenlaces relacionados con la enfermedad.

OBJECTIVE This living, systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of macrolides for treating patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: a living, systematic review. DATABASE: We conducted searches in the centralized repository L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from the Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. Today it is maintained through regular searches in 39 databases.METHODS: We included randomized trials evaluating the effect of macrolides ­ as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs ­ versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomized trials evaluating macrolides in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomized studies in COVID-19 were searched in case we found no direct evidence from randomized trials. Two reviewers independently screened each study for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Measures included all-cause mortality; the need for invasive mechanical ventilation; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, length of hospital stay, respiratory failure, serious adverse events, time to SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR negativity. We applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates. RESULTS: The search in the L·OVE platform retrieved 424 references. We considered 260 as potentially eligible and were reviewed in full texts. We included one randomized clinical trial that evaluated the use of azithromycin in combination with hydroxychloroquine compared to hydroxychloroquine alone in hospitalized patients with COVID 19. The estimates for all outcomes evaluated resulted in insufficient power to draw conclusions. The quality of the evidence for the main outcomes was low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: Macrolides in the management of patients with COVID 19 showed no beneficial effects compared to standard of care. The evidence for all outcomes is inconclusive. Larger trials are needed to determine the effects of macrolides on pulmonary and other outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

Cell-based therapies for COVID-19: a living, systematic review

Objective This living, systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated summary of the available evidence on the role of cell-based therapies in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Data sources We conducted searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature, and in a centralized repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from the Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. All the searches covered the period until 23 April 2020 (one day before submission). Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methods We adapted an already published standard protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We searched for randomized trials evaluating the effectiveness and safety of cell-based therapies versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Anticipating the lack of randomized trials directly addressing this question, we also searched for trials evaluating other coronavirus infections, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and nonrandomized studies in COVID-19. Two reviewers independently screened each study for eligibility. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit this review to a peer-reviewed journal every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates. Results We screened 1 043 records, but no study was considered eligible. We identified 61 ongoing studies, including 39 randomized trials evaluating different types of cell-based therapies in COVID-19. Conclusions We did not find any studies that met our inclusion criteria, and hence there is no evidence to support or refute the use of cell-based therapies for treating patients with COVID-19. A substantial number of ongoing studies should provide valuable evidence to inform researchers and decision-makers in the near future. PROSPERO Registration number CRD42020179711

Prognostic factors for severity and mortality in patients infected with COVID-19: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The objective of our systematic review is to identify prognostic factors that may be used in decision-making related to the care of patients infected with COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: We conducted highly sensitive searches in PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Embase. The searches covered the period from the inception date of each database until April 28, 2020. No study design, publication status or language restriction were applied. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: We included studies that assessed patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infectious disease and examined one or more prognostic factors for mortality or disease severity. Reviewers working in pairs independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We performed meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each prognostic factor and outcome. RESULTS: We included 207 studies and found high or moderate certainty that the following 49 variables provide valuable prognostic information on mortality and/or severe disease in patients with COVID-19 infectious disease: Demographic factors (age, male sex, smoking), patient history factors (comorbidities, cerebrovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, cardiac arrhythmia, arterial hypertension, diabetes, dementia, cancer and dyslipidemia), physical examination factors (respiratory failure, low blood pressure, hypoxemia, tachycardia, dyspnea, anorexia, tachypnea, haemoptysis, abdominal pain, fatigue, fever and myalgia or arthralgia), laboratory factors (high blood procalcitonin, myocardial injury markers, high blood White Blood Cell count (WBC), high blood lactate, low blood platelet count, plasma creatinine increase, high blood D-dimer, high blood lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), high blood C-reactive protein (CRP), decrease in lymphocyte count, high blood aspartate aminotransferase (AST), decrease in blood albumin, high blood interleukin-6 (IL-6), high blood neutrophil count, high blood B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), high blood urea nitrogen (BUN), high blood creatine kinase (CK), high blood bilirubin and high erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)), radiological factors (consolidative infiltrate and pleural effusion) and high SOFA score (sequential organ failure assessment score). CONCLUSION: Identified prognostic factors can help clinicians and policy makers in tailoring management strategies for patients with COVID-19 infectious disease while researchers can utilise our findings to develop multivariable prognostic models that could eventually facilitate decision-making and improve patient important outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Prospero registration number: CRD42020178802. Protocol available at: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20056598v1.

Transmisión sexual del virus SARS-CoV-2 y su rol en la propagación de COVID-19: protocolo de una revisión sistemática viva / Sexual transmission of SARS-CoV-2 virus and its role in the spread of COVID-19: a living systematic review protocol

Objetivo Proporcionar una revisión de la literatura sobre la presencia de SARS-CoV-2 en los fluidos sexuales de pacientes con COVID-19 y su posible transmisión sexual de manera oportuna, rigurosa y continuamente actualizada. Fuentes de datos Realizaremos búsquedas en PubMed / Medline, Embase, Registro Cochrane Central de Ensayos Controlados (CENTRAL), literatura gris y en un repositorio centralizado en L · OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L · OVE es una plataforma que mapea las preguntas PICO a la evidencia de la base de datos Epistemonikos. En respuesta a la emergencia de COVID-19, L · OVE se adaptó para ampliar el rango de evidencia que cubre y se personalizó para agrupar todas las pruebas de COVID-19 en un solo lugar. La búsqueda cubrirá el período hasta el día anterior al envío a una revista. Criterios de elegibilidad para la selección de estudios y métodos Adaptamos un protocolo común ya publicado para múltiples revisiones sistemáticas paralelas a las especificidades de esta pregunta. Incluiremos ensayos aleatorios que evalúen la transmisión sexual del virus SARS-CoV-2. Se buscarán ensayos aleatorizados que evalúen la transmisión sexual de otros coronavirus, como MERS-CoV y SARS-CoV, y estudios no aleatorizados en COVID-19 en caso de que no se encuentre evidencia directa de ensayos aleatorizados, o si la evidencia directa proporciona una - o certeza muy baja para resultados críticos. Dos revisores evaluarán de forma independiente la elegibilidad de cada estudio, extraerán datos y evaluarán el riesgo de sesgo. Realizaremos metanálisis de efectos aleatorios y utilizaremos GRADE para evaluar la certeza de la evidencia para cada resultado. Una versión viva basada en la web de esta revisión estará disponible abiertamente durante la pandemia de COVID-19. Lo volveremos a enviar si las conclusiones cambian o hay actualizaciones sustanciales Registro PROSPERO (CRD42020189368).

Guidelines in Low and Middle Income Countries Paper 2: Quality assessment of Chilean guidelines: need for improvement in rigor, applicability, updating, and patients' inclusion.

OBJECTIVES: The Chilean health system mandates providers to ensure assistance under a guaranteed system, the Explicit Guarantees in Healthcare (EGH) program. The Health Ministry has developed clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), but independent assessment of their quality is lacking. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We assessed all CPGs of the EGH program using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool for appraising quality, validity period, and last update. RESULTS: Eighty-six CPGs were published between 2005 and 2016. Only 15 (17.4%) were updated. The overall mean raw score was 4.18 (±0.98). The scaled scores for each domain were: Scope and objectives 79.7%, Stakeholder involvement 46.2%, Rigor of development 36.3%, Clarity of presentation 82.8%, Applicability 23.5%, and Editorial independence 39.2%. The highest items were: overall objectives described, population described, options for management clearly presented, and key recommendations easily identifiable. The worst evaluated items were: views and preferences of the target population, strengths and limitations of the body of evidence, methods for formulating the recommendations, external review by experts, and description of facilitators and barriers to application. CONCLUSION: Most Chilean CPGs included in the EGH program are outdated and show items that should be improved, mainly through a more rigorous methodology, the inclusion of patients in its development, and appropriate consideration of its applicability.

Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 3 December 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 1 December 2021 were included in the analysis. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. RESULTS: 463 trials enrolling 166 581 patients were included; 267 (57.7%) trials and 89 814 (53.9%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 265 (57.2%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, three drugs reduced mortality in patients with mostly severe disease with at least moderate certainty: systemic corticosteroids (risk difference 23 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 40 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), interleukin-6 receptor antagonists when given with corticosteroids (23 fewer per 1000, 36 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), and Janus kinase inhibitors (44 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 20 fewer, high certainty). Compared with standard care, two drugs probably reduce hospital admission in patients with non-severe disease: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (36 fewer per 1000, 41 fewer to 26 fewer, moderate certainty) and molnupiravir (19 fewer per 1000, 29 fewer to 5 fewer, moderate certainty). Remdesivir may reduce hospital admission (29 fewer per 1000, 40 fewer to 6 fewer, low certainty). Only molnupiravir had at least moderate quality evidence of a reduction in time to symptom resolution (3.3 days fewer, 4.8 fewer to 1.6 fewer, moderate certainty); several others showed a possible benefit. Several drugs may increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation; hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of mechanical ventilation (moderate certainty). CONCLUSION: Corticosteroids, interleukin-6 receptor antagonists, and Janus kinase inhibitors probably reduce mortality and confer other important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir probably reduce admission to hospital in patients with non-severe covid-19. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fifth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

Are oral oestrogens effective in preventing urinary tract infection in postmenopausal woman. / Son efectivos los estrógenos orales en la prevención de infección del tracto urinario en mujeres posmenopáusicas.

INTRODUCCIÓN: La infección del tracto urinario es una patología frecuente, con un alto riesgo de recurrencia, por lo que representa un importan-te motivo de consulta. Dentro de la población más afectada se encuentran las mujeres postmenopáusicas debido a la caída de los niveles de estrógenos, tanto locales como sistémicos, perdiéndose la barrera protectora de la vía urinaria contra agentes patógenos. Entre las variadas medidas que potencialmente disminuirían el riesgo de infección urinaria se ha planteado el uso de estrógenos, sin embargo, no está claro si realmente son efectivos. MÉTODOS: Para responder esta pregunta utilizamos Epistemonikos, la mayor base de datos de revisiones sistemáticas en salud a nivel mundial, la cual es mantenida mediante búsquedas en múltiples fuentes de información, incluyendo MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, entre otras. Extrajimos los datos desde las revisiones identificadas, reanalizamos los datos de los estudios primarios, realizamos un metanálisis, preparamos tablas de resumen de los resultados utilizando el método GRADE. RESULTADOS Y CONCLUSIONES: Identificamos seis revisiones sistemáticas que en conjunto incluyen siete estudios primarios, de los cuales, cuatro son ensayos aleatorizados. Concluimos que no está claro si los estrógenos orales disminuyen el riesgo de desarrollar infección del tracto urinario sintomática, porque la certeza de la evidencia es muy baja.

Lopinavir/ritonavir for COVID-19: a living systematic review / Lopinavir/ritonavir para COVID-19: una revisión sistemática viva

Objective: Provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated summary of the evidence on the role of lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Methods: We conducted searches in the special L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19, a system that performs regular searches in PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and other 33 sources. We searched for randomized trials and non-randomized studies evaluating the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Two reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible studies, according to predefined selection criteria, and extracted data using a predesigned standardized form. We performed meta-analyses using random-effect models and assessed overall certainty in evidence using the GRADE approach. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Our search strategy yielded 862 references. Finally, we identified 12 studies, including two randomized trials, evaluating lopinavir/ritonavir, in addition to standard care versus standard care alone in 250 adult inpatients with COVID-19. The evidence from randomized trials shows lopinavir/ritonavir may reduce mortality (relative risk: 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 1.3; low certainty evidence), but the anticipated magnitude of the absolute reduction in mortality, varies across different risk groups. Lopinavir/ritonavir also had a slight reduction in the risk of requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, developing respiratory failure, or acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, it did not lead to any difference in the duration of hospitalization and may lead to an increase in the number of total adverse effects. The overall certainty of the evidence was low or very low. Conclusions: For severe and critical patients with COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir might play a role in improving outcomes, but the available evidence is still limited. A substantial number of ongoing studies should provide valuable evidence to inform researchers and decision-makers soon.

Objetivo: Esta revisión sistemática viva tiene como objetivo entregar un resumen oportuno, riguroso y constantemente actualizado de la evidencia disponible sobre los efectos de lopinavir/ritonavir en pacientes con COVID-19. Métodos: Se realizó una búsqueda en la plataforma L·OVE COVID-19 (Living OVerview of Evidence), un sistema que mantiene búsquedas regulares en PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) y otras 33 fuentes. Se buscaron ensayos aleatorios y estudios no aleatorios que evaluaran el uso de lopinavir/ritonavir versus placebo o ningún tratamiento en pacientes con COVID-19. Dos revisores evaluaron de forma independiente los artículos potencialmente elegibles, de acuerdo con criterios de selección predefinidos, y extrajeron los datos mediante un formulario estandarizado. Los resultados fueron combinados mediante un metanálisis utilizando modelos de efectos aleatorios y evaluamos la certeza de la evidencia utilizando el método GRADE. Una versión viva de esta revisión estará disponible durante la pandemia de COVID-19. Resultados: La búsqueda inicial arrojó 862 referencias. Finalmente, identificamos 12 estudios incluyendo 2 ensayos aleatorios, que evaluaban lopinavir/ritonavir adicionado al tratamiento estándar versus tratamiento estándar en 250 pacientes adultos hospitalizados con COVID-19. Los resultados provenientes de los ensayos aleatorios muestran que el uso de lopinavir/ritonavir puede reducir la mortalidad (riesgo relativo: 0,77; intervalo de confianza 95%: 0,45 a 1,3; certeza de evidencia baja), pero la magnitud de la reducción absoluta de la mortalidad varía según los diferentes grupos de riesgo. El uso de lopinavir/ritonavir mostró además una ligera reducción en el riesgo de requerir ventilación mecánica invasiva, desarrollar insuficiencia respiratoria o síndrome de dificultad respiratoria aguda. No se observó diferencias en la duración de la hospitalización y su uso puede producir un aumento en el número de efectos adversos totales. La certeza global de la evidencia fue baja o muy baja. Conclusiones: Para pacientes graves y críticos con COVID-19, el uso de lopinavir/ritonavir podría desempeñar un papel en la mejora de los resultados, pero la evidencia disponible aún es limitada. La gran cantidad de estudios en curso deberían proporcionar evidencia valiosa para informar a los investigadores y los tomadores de decisiones en el futuro cercano.

Vitamin C for COVID-19: a living systematic review / Vitamina C para COVID-19: una revisión sistemática viva

OBJECTIVE: This living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated summary of the available evidence on the role of vitamin C in treating patients with COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: We conducted searches in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature, and in a centralized repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it comprises and has been customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. All the searches covered the period until April 29, 2020 (one day before submission). STUDY SELECTION AND METHODS: We adapted an already published standard protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews. We searched for randomized trials evaluating the effect, in patients with COVID-19, of vitamin C versus placebo or no treatment. Anticipating the lack of randomized trials directly addressing this question, we also searched for trials evaluating MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomized studies in COVID-19. Two reviewers independently screened each study for eligibility. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic, and we will resubmit it to the journal whenever there are substantial updates. RESULTS: We screened 95 records, but no study was considered eligible. We identified 20 ongoing studies, including 13 randomized trials evaluating vitamin C in COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any studies that met our inclusion criteria, and hence there is no evidence to support or refute the use of vitamin C in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. A substantial number of ongoing studies should provide valuable evidence to inform researchers and decision-makers soon.

OBJETIVO: Esta revisión sistemática viva tiene como objetivo proporcionar un resumen oportuno, riguroso y continuamente actualizado de la evidencia disponible sobre el papel de la vitamina C en el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19. FUENTES DE DATOS: Realizamos búsquedas en PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), literatura gris y en un repositorio centralizado en L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). En respuesta a la emergencia de COVID-19, L·OVE se adaptó para ampliar el rango de evidencia que cubre y se personalizó para agrupar toda la evidencia de COVID-19 en un solo lugar. Todas las búsquedas abarcaron el período hasta el 29 de abril de 2020 (un día antes de su envío). SELECCIÓN DE ESTUDIOS Y MÉTODOS: Adaptamos un protocolo común publicado para múltiples revisiones sistemáticas paralelas. Se buscaron ensayos aleatorios que evaluaran el efecto de la vitamina C versus placebo o ningún tratamiento en pacientes con COVID-19. Anticipando la falta de ensayos aleatorios que aborden directamente esta cuestión, también buscamos ensayos que evaluaran MERS-CoV y SARS-CoV, y estudios no aleatorios en COVID-19. Dos revisores seleccionaron de forma independiente cada estudio para determinar su elegibilidad. Una versión viva y basada en la web de esta revisión estará abiertamente disponible durante la pandemia de COVID-19, y se volverá a enviar a publicación cuando haya actualizaciones sustanciales. RESULTADOS: Se examinaron 95 registros, pero ningún estudio se consideró elegible. Se identificaron 20 estudios en curso, incluidos 13 ensayos aleatorios que evalúan la vitamina C en COVID-19. CONCLUSIONES: No se encontró ningún estudio que cumpliera con los criterios de inclusión, por lo que no hay evidencia para apoyar o refutar el uso de vitamina C en el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19. Un número sustancial de estudios en curso debería proporcionar evidencia valiosa para informar a los investigadores y los tomadores de decisiones en un futuro próximo.

Son efectivos los estrógenos orales en la prevención de infección del tracto urinario en mujeres posmenopáusicas / Are oral oestrogens effective in preventing urinary tract infection in postmenopausal woman

INTRODUCCIÓN: La infección del tracto urinario es una patología frecuente, con un alto riesgo de recurrencia, por lo que representa un importan-te motivo de consulta. Dentro de la población más afectada se encuentran las mujeres postmenopáusicas debido a la caída de los niveles de estrógenos, tanto locales como sistémicos, perdiéndose la barrera protectora de la vía urinaria contra agentes patógenos. Entre las variadas medidas que potencialmente disminuirían el riesgo de infección urinaria se ha planteado el uso de estrógenos, sin embargo, no está claro si realmente son efectivos. MÉTODOS: Para responder esta pregunta utilizamos Epistemonikos, la mayor base de datos de revisiones sistemáticas en salud a nivel mundial, la cual es mantenida mediante búsquedas en múltiples fuentes de información, incluyendo MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, entre otras. Extrajimos los datos desde las revisiones identificadas, reanalizamos los datos de los estudios primarios, realizamos un metanálisis, preparamos tablas de resumen de los resultados utilizando el método GRADE. RESULTADOS Y CONCLUSIONES: Identificamos seis revisiones sistemáticas que en conjunto incluyen siete estudios primarios, de los cuales, cuatro son ensayos aleatorizados. Concluimos que no está claro si los estrógenos orales disminuyen el riesgo de desarrollar infección del tracto urinario sintomática, porque la certeza de la evidencia es muy baja.