Pan-American Guidelines for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19: a joint evidence-based guideline of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI) and the Pan-American Association of Infectious Diseases (API).

BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, therapeutic options for treating COVID-19 have been investigated at different stages of clinical manifestations. Considering the particular impact of COVID-19 in the Americas, this document aims to present recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19 specific to this population. METHODS: Fifteen experts, members of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI) and the Pan-American Association of Infectious Diseases (API) make up the panel responsible for developing this guideline. Questions were formulated regarding prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings. The outcomes considered in decision-making were mortality, hospitalisation, need for mechanical ventilation, symptomatic COVID-19 episodes, and adverse events. In addition, a systematic review of randomised controlled trials was conducted. The quality of evidence assessment and guideline development process followed the GRADE system. RESULTS: Nine technologies were evaluated, and ten recommendations were made, including the use of tixagevimab + cilgavimab in the prophylaxis of COVID-19, tixagevimab + cilgavimab, molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir + ritonavir, and remdesivir in the treatment of outpatients, and remdesivir, baricitinib, and tocilizumab in the treatment of hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19. The use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine and ivermectin was discouraged. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides recommendations for treating patients in the Americas following the principles of evidence-based medicine. The recommendations present a set of drugs that have proven effective in the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19, emphasising the strong recommendation for the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in outpatients as the lack of benefit from the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

Pan-American Guidelines for the Treatment of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19: a joint evidence-based guideline of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI) and the Pan-American Association of Infectious Diseases (API) [Pré-print]

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, therapeutic options for treating COVID-19 have been investigated at different stages of clinical manifestations. Considering the particular impact of COVID-19 in the Americas, this document aims to present recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19 specific to this population. Fifteen experts, members of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI) and the Pan-American Association of Infectious Diseases (API) make up the panel responsible for developing this guideline. Questions were formulated regarding prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings. The outcomes considered in decision-making were mortality, hospitalisation, need for mechanical ventilation, symptomatic COVID-19 episodes, and adverse events. In addition, a systematic review of randomised controlled trials was conducted. The quality of evidence assessment and guideline development process followed the GRADE system. Nine technologies were evaluated, and ten recommendations were made, including the use of tixagevimab + cilgavimab in the prophylaxis of COVID-19, tixagevimab + cilgavimab, molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir + ritonavir, and remdesivir in the treatment of outpatients, and remdesivir, baricitinib, and tocilizumab in the treatment of hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19. The use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine and ivermectin was discouraged. This guideline provides recommendations for treating patients in the Americas following the principles of evidence-based medicine. The recommendations present a set of drugs that have proven effective in the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19, emphasising the strong recommendation for the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in outpatients as the lack of benefit from the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin

Effects of monochromatic infrared phototherapy in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Monochromatic infrared energy (MIRE) or phototherapy has been used to improve plantar sensitivity and pain in lower limbs of patients with diabetic sensorimotor peripheral neuropathy (DSPN), but the available primary results are inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: To review systematically the effects of MIRE on plantar sensitivity and neuropathic pain in patients with DSPN. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar were searched up to September 2016. Randomized controlled trials addressing the effects of MIRE on plantar sensitivity and neuropathic pain in patients with DSPN were selected. Study inclusion, risk of bias and quality assessment, and data extraction were completed by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: Of 2549 records identified, six studies met the selection criteria, with 304 patients (594 feet) randomized. MIRE was not associated with improvement in plantar tactile sensitivity (SMD=0.22, 95%CI -0.07 to 0.51, low quality of evidence). Subgroups of studies with short-term (up to 2 weeks) follow-up showed significant improvement in plantar sensitivity (SMD=0.41, 95% CI 0.18-0.64). Neuropathic pain increased significantly in patients who received MIRE (MD=0.49, 95% CI 0.30-0.68, low quality of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: There was limited evidence that MIRE results in short-term improvement of tactile sensitivity probably not sustained over time. Limited evidence also suggested that MIRE does not provide relief for neuropathic pain. As quality of evidence is low, further studies are likely to change the estimated effect.

Efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in depression in adults: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of vitamin D (Vit D) in depression provided inconsistent results. OBJECTIVE: We aim to summarize the evidence of RCTs to assess the efficacy of oral Vit D supplementation in depression compared to placebo. DATA SOURCES: We searched electronic databases, two conference proceedings, and gray literature by contacting authors of included studies. STUDY SELECTION: We selected parallel RCTs investigating the effect of oral Vit D supplementation compared with placebo on depression in adults at risk of depression, with depression symptoms or a primary diagnosis of depression. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data from relevant literature. DATA SYNTHESIS: Classical and Bayesian random-effects meta-analyses were used to pool relative risk, odds ratio, and standardized mean difference. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool. RESULTS: Six RCTs were identified with 1203 participants (72% females) including 71 depressed patients; five of the studies involved adults at risk of depression, and one trial used depressed patients. Results of the classical meta-analysis showed no significant effect of Vit D supplementation on postintervention depression scores (standardized mean difference = -0.14, 95% confidence interval = -0.41 to 0.13, P = .32; odds ratio = 0.93, 95% confidence interval = 0.54 to 1.59, P = .79). The quality of evidence was low. No significant differences were demonstrated in subgroup or sensitivity analyses. Similar results were found when Bayesian meta-analyses were applied. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of Vit D supplementation in depression symptoms, and more RCTs using depressed patients are warranted.