ABSTRACT
Resumen Introducción: debido a la emergencia del coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 desde diciembre del 2019, se ha generado un gran volumen de producción científica, en algún caso incierta o controvertida especialmente en el manejo farmacológico de los pacientes con esta infección; por lo tanto, se considera relevante buscar alternativas metodológicas para realizar su síntesis rigurosa, sistemática y de calidad, pero con menor tiempo de ejecución y menor costo. Objetivo: presentar la evidencia disponible respecto al manejo farmacológico de personas con sospecha o diagnóstico de infección respiratoria por SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) utilizando el método de revisiones sistemáticas rápidas (RS-R) en medicamentos poten- cialmente eficaces para su manejo. Metodología: se realizó una búsqueda sistemática y estructurada en Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Clinical trials y Google Scholar en inglés. Los estudios incluidos fueron guías de práctica clínica, consensos, revisiones sistemáticas, metaanálisis, ensayos clínicos y otros estudios primarios. La búsqueda y extracción de datos se realizó por múltiples revisores, pero ninguna fue pareada. Resultados: dieciseis preguntas de interés clínico fueron resueltas, relacionadas con el uso en COVID-19 de lopinavir/ ritonavir, nelfinavir, oseltamivir, remdesivir, ribavirina, teicoplanina, umifenovir, favipiravir, tocilizumab, ivermectina y plasma convaleciente; también se evaluó el uso de medicamentos de soporte e incluidos en el manejo como la dexametasona, así como el uso concomitante de medicamentos que generaron dudas como son los AINES, los IECA y los ARA II. Conclusiones: los resúmenes de evidencia se muestran dentro del escenario de la pandemia como una buena alternativa metodológica para ofrecer información de calidad a corto plazo para los tomadores de decisiones.
Abstract Introduction: Due to the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus since December 2019, a large volume of scientific production has been generated, in some cases uncertain or controversial, especially in the pharmacological management of patients with this infection; therefore, it is considered a relevant search for methodological alternatives to carry out its rigorous, systematic and quality synthesis, but with less execution time and lower cost. Objective: To present the available evidence regarding the pharmacological management of people with suspected or diagnosed respiratory SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) using the method of rapid systematic reviews (RS-R) in potentially effective drugs for their management. Methodology: A systematic and structured search was conducted in Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Clinical trials and Google Scholar in English. Studies included clinical practice guidelines, consensus, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, clinical trials, and other primary studies. Data search and extraction were performed by multiple reviewers, but none were paired. Results: Sixteen questions of clinical interest were resolved, related to the use in COVID-19 of lopinavir/ritonavir, nelfinavir, oseltamivir, remdesivir, ribavirin, teicoplanin, umifenovir, favipiravir, tocilizumab, ivermectin, convalescent plasma; the use of support management drugs such as dexamethasone were also evaluated, as well as the concomitant use of drugs that generated doubts, such as NSAIDs, ACEis, and ARA IIs. Conclusions: Summaries of evidence are within the pandemic scenario as a good methodological alternative to offer quality information in the short term for decision-makers.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Drug Therapy , COVID-19 , Antiviral Agents , Patients , Therapeutics , Colombia , Severe Acute Respiratory SyndromeABSTRACT
está disponible en el texto completo
The exponential increase in the request for laboratory tests of 25-Hydroxyvitamin D or [25 (OH) D has ignited the alarms and generated a strong call for attention, since it may reflect deficiencies in the standardization of clinical practice and in the use non-systematic scientific evidence for decision-making in real life, which allows to analyze the indications of the test, its frequency, interpretation and even to assess the impact for health systems, especially when contrasted with the minimum or almost. No effects of the strategy of screening or supplying indiscriminately to the general population, without considering a comprehensive clinical assessment of risks and needs of people. From a purely public health impact point of view, the consequence of massive and unspecified requests is affecting most of the health systems and institutions at the global level. The primary studies that determined average population intake values have been widely used in the formulation of recommendations in Clinical Practice Guidelines, but unfortunately misinterpreted as cut points to diagnose disease and allow the exaggerated prescription of nutritional substitution. The coefficient of variation in routine tests to measure blood levels of 25 (OH) D is high (28%), decreasing the overall accuracy of the test and simultaneously, increasing both the falsely high and falsely low values. The most recent scientific evidence analyzes and seriously questions the usefulness and the real effect of the massive and indiscriminate practice of prescribing vitamin D without an exhaustive risk analysis. The available evidence is insufficient to recommend a general substitution of vitamin D to prevent fractures, falls, changes in bone mineral density, incidence of cardiovascular diseases, cerebrovascular disease, neoplasms and also to modify the growth curve of mothers' children. They received vitamin D as a substitute during pregnancy. The recommendations presented in the document are based on the critical analysis of current evidence and the principles of good clinical practice and invite to consider a rational use of 25 (OH) D tests in the context of a clinical practice focused on people and a comprehensive assessment of needs and risks. The principles of good practice suggest that clinicians may be able to justify that the results of the 25 (OH) D test strongly influence and define clinical practice and modify the outcomes that interest people and impact their health and wellness. Currently there is no clarity on how to interpret the results, and the relationship between symptoms and 25 (OH) D levels, which may not be consistent with the high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency reported. For this reason, it is suggested to review the rationale of the request for tests for systematic monitoring of levels of 25 (OH) D or in all cases where substitution is performed. Consider the use of 25 (OH) D tests within the comprehensive evaluation of people with suspicion or confirmation of the following conditions: rickets, osteomalacia, osteoporosis, hyper or hypoparathyroidism, malabsorption syndromes, sarcopenia, metabolic bone disease.