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.

Profile of HIV subtypes in HIV/HBV- and HIV/HCV-coinfected patients in Southern Brazil.

INTRODUCTION:: HIV and viral hepatitis infections are major causes of chronic disease worldwide and have some similarities with regard to routes of transmission, epidemiology, front barriers faced during access of treatment, and strategies for a global public health response. The objective was to describe the HIV-1 subtypes, viral tropism and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of interleukin 28B (IL28B) from a case series of HIV/viral hepatitis coinfected patients from southern Brazil. METHODS:: Clinical and epidemiological data were evaluated by a review of medical records. Periodic blood draws were taken to determine the viral and host characteristics. RESULTS:: This study included 38 patients with HIV/HBV or HIV/HCV coinfection; the median age was 49 years. Thirty-seven (97.4%) were on antiretroviral therapy, 32 (84.2%) had an undetectable viral load, a median CD4+ T-cell count of 452 cells/mm3. HIV-1 subtyping showed 47.4 and 31.6% of patients with subtypes C and B, respectively. Analysis of viral co-receptor usage showed a predominance of the R5 variant (64.7%), with no significant difference between the subtypes. Twenty patients with HIV/HCV coinfection were eligible to receive HCV therapy with pegylated-interferon-alpha plus ribavirin, and 10/20 (50%) of them achieved sustained virological response. SNPs of IL28B were evaluated in 93.3% of patients with HIV/HCV coinfection, and 17 (60.7%) presented the CC genotype. CONCLUSIONS:: In the present case series, a higher frequency of HIV subtype C was found in coinfected patients. However such findings need to be prospectively evaluated with the inclusion of data from regional multicenter analyses.

Profile of HIV subtypes in HIV/HBV- and HIV/HCV-coinfected patients in Southern Brazil

Abstract INTRODUCTION: HIV and viral hepatitis infections are major causes of chronic disease worldwide and have some similarities with regard to routes of transmission, epidemiology, front barriers faced during access of treatment, and strategies for a global public health response. The objective was to describe the HIV-1 subtypes, viral tropism and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of interleukin 28B (IL28B) from a case series of HIV/viral hepatitis coinfected patients from southern Brazil. METHODS: Clinical and epidemiological data were evaluated by a review of medical records. Periodic blood draws were taken to determine the viral and host characteristics. RESULTS: This study included 38 patients with HIV/HBV or HIV/HCV coinfection; the median age was 49 years. Thirty-seven (97.4%) were on antiretroviral therapy, 32 (84.2%) had an undetectable viral load, a median CD4+ T-cell count of 452 cells/mm3. HIV-1 subtyping showed 47.4 and 31.6% of patients with subtypes C and B, respectively. Analysis of viral co-receptor usage showed a predominance of the R5 variant (64.7%), with no significant difference between the subtypes. Twenty patients with HIV/HCV coinfection were eligible to receive HCV therapy with pegylated-interferon-alpha plus ribavirin, and 10/20 (50%) of them achieved sustained virological response. SNPs of IL28B were evaluated in 93.3% of patients with HIV/HCV coinfection, and 17 (60.7%) presented the CC genotype. CONCLUSIONS: In the present case series, a higher frequency of HIV subtype C was found in coinfected patients. However such findings need to be prospectively evaluated with the inclusion of data from regional multicenter analyses.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of two different antimicrobial stewardship programs

Abstract There is a lack of formal economic analysis to assess the efficiency of antimicrobial stewardship programs. Herein, we conducted a cost-effectiveness study to assess two different strategies of Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs. A 30-day Markov model was developed to analyze how cost-effective was a Bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship implemented in a university hospital in Brazil. Clinical data derived from a historical cohort that compared two different strategies of antimicrobial stewardship programs and had 30-day mortality as main outcome. Selected costs included: workload, cost of defined daily doses, length of stay, laboratory and imaging resources used to diagnose infections. Data were analyzed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess model's robustness, tornado diagram and Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curve. Bundled Strategy was more expensive (Cost difference US$ 2119.70), however, it was more efficient (US$ 27,549.15 vs 29,011.46). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that critical variables did not alter final Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio. Bundled Strategy had higher probabilities of being cost-effective, which was endorsed by cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. As health systems claim for efficient technologies, this study conclude that Bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship Program was more cost-effective, which means that stewardship strategies with such characteristics would be of special interest in a societal and clinical perspective.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of two different antimicrobial stewardship programs.

There is a lack of formal economic analysis to assess the efficiency of antimicrobial stewardship programs. Herein, we conducted a cost-effectiveness study to assess two different strategies of Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs. A 30-day Markov model was developed to analyze how cost-effective was a Bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship implemented in a university hospital in Brazil. Clinical data derived from a historical cohort that compared two different strategies of antimicrobial stewardship programs and had 30-day mortality as main outcome. Selected costs included: workload, cost of defined daily doses, length of stay, laboratory and imaging resources used to diagnose infections. Data were analyzed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess model's robustness, tornado diagram and Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curve. Bundled Strategy was more expensive (Cost difference US$ 2119.70), however, it was more efficient (US$ 27,549.15 vs 29,011.46). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that critical variables did not alter final Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio. Bundled Strategy had higher probabilities of being cost-effective, which was endorsed by cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. As health systems claim for efficient technologies, this study conclude that Bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship Program was more cost-effective, which means that stewardship strategies with such characteristics would be of special interest in a societal and clinical perspective.