The low health literacy in Latin America and the Caribbean: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Health literacy (HL) impacts people's health and well-being. In Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), there are no general estimates of the prevalence of low HL. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of low HL among citizens of LAC and identify the tools used to measure it. METHODS: We included observational studies quantifying the prevalence of low HL in people living in LAC. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, LILACS, PsycINFO, Redalyc, SciELO, Web of Science, PQDT, and the reference lists of the included studies in June 2023. Two reviewers independently conducted the selection, extraction, and risk of bias assessment using the JBI Critical Appraisal Tools. Meta-analysis of proportions using random effects models was used to summarize the prevalence of low HL estimated. This prevalence was measured in each study using different classification methods: word recognition items, reading and numeracy comprehension items, and self-reported comprehension items. RESULTS: Eighty four studies involving 23,914 participants from 15 countries were included. We identified 23 tools to assess HL, and most of the studies were carried out in health services. The pooled prevalence of low HL were 44.02% (95%CI: 36.12-52.24) for reading and numeracy comprehension items, 50.62% (95%CI: 41.82-59.39) for word recognition items, and 41.73% (95%CI: 31.76-52.43) for self-reported comprehension items. CONCLUSION: Despite the variability in the prevalence of low HL and a diversity of tools, the average of low HL is of concern. Almost half of the participants in the included studies have low HL. Most of the studies targeted users of healthcare services. Further research investigating the prevalence of low HL in the general population and actions focused on health education, communication, and information are necessary. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42021250286).

The effect of different levothyroxine administration regimens on thyroid hormone levels: a systematic review, pairwise, and network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: This systematic review aimed to compare the effect of alternative levothyroxine administration regimens on thyroid hormone levels and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among adults with hypothyroidism. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, SciELO, Scopus, Web of Science, OpenGrey, ProQuest, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP from inception to May/2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We assessed the risk of bias with Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. We analyzed TSH levels by pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA). The FT4 levels and PROs were qualitatively assessed. RESULTS: We included 14 RCTs (906 participants) comparing different regimens, as bedtime vs. before breakfast. A total of 12 RCTs were at high risk of bias. Seven RCTs were included in the TSH meta-analysis, where the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were as follows: bedtime vs before breakfast (4 RCTs) 0.69 (-1.67-3.04), I2 = 92%, very low certainty evidence; weekly dose vs before breakfast (2 RCTs) 1.68 (0.94-2.41), I2 = 0%, low certainty evidence; and at breakfast vs before breakfast (1 RCT) 0.65 (-1.11-2.41), very low certainty evidence. The NMA showed no evidence of differences in TSH level with different regimens. CONCLUSION: The evidence is insufficient to determine the most effective levothyroxine administration regimen for hypothyroidism. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO - CRD42021279375.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients with preexisting dementia: a large multicenter propensity-matched Brazilian cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Although dementia has emerged as an important risk factor for severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, results on COVID-19-related complications and mortality are not consistent. We examined the clinical presentations and outcomes of COVID-19 in a multicentre cohort of in-hospital patients, comparing those with and without dementia. METHODS: This retrospective observational study comprises COVID-19 laboratory-confirmed patients aged ≥ 60 years admitted to 38 hospitals from 19 cities in Brazil. Data were obtained from electronic hospital records. A propensity score analysis was used to match patients with and without dementia (up to 3:1) according to age, sex, comorbidities, year, and hospital of admission. Our primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. We also assessed admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), kidney replacement therapy (KRT), sepsis, nosocomial infection, and thromboembolic events. RESULTS: Among 1,556 patients included in the study, 405 (4.5%) had a diagnosis of dementia and 1,151 were matched controls. When compared to matched controls, patients with dementia had a lower frequency of dyspnoea, cough, myalgia, headache, ageusia, and anosmia; and higher frequency of fever and delirium. They also had a lower frequency of ICU admission (32.7% vs. 47.1%, p < 0.001) and shorter ICU length of stay (7 vs. 9 days, p < 0.026), and a lower frequency of sepsis (17% vs. 24%, p = 0.005), KRT (6.4% vs. 13%, p < 0.001), and IVM (4.6% vs. 9.8%, p = 0.002). There were no differences in hospital mortality between groups. CONCLUSION: Clinical manifestations of COVID-19 differ between older inpatients with and without dementia. We observed that dementia alone could not explain the higher short-term mortality following severe COVID-19. Therefore, clinicians should consider other risk factors such as acute morbidity severity and baseline frailty when evaluating the prognosis of older adults with dementia hospitalised with COVID-19.

Cancer Risk Factors in Southern Brazil: Report of a Comprehensive, Matched Case-Control Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate cancer risk factors among cancer cases and controls from Southern Brazil, to analyze a multigene hereditary panel testing (MGPT, 26 genes) for breast cancer (BC) and colorectal cancer (CCR) cases diagnosed age younger than 50 years and to characterize them for hereditary cancer syndrome (HCS) phenotypes. METHODS: A case-control (matched by age group and sex) study was conducted on regional cancer. Data on exposure factors and first-/second-degree family history of cancer (1/2FHC) were collected. The MGPT was performed using Illumina next-generation sequencing technology. RESULTS: A total of 1,007 cases and 1,007 controls were included. The most frequent cancers were BC (n = 311), CCR (n = 147), prostate (n = 132), and lung cancers (n = 89). It was independently associated with cancer, 1/2FHC, tobacco consumption (TC), pesticide exposure (PE), solvent/glue exposure, and BMI <24. BC was associated with 1/2FHC, TC, and hormone replacement therapy use; CCR with 1/2FHC, TC, and BMI <24; prostate cancer with 1/2FHC, TC, and alcohol consumption; and lung cancer with 1/2FHC, TC, PE, and BMI <24. MGPT identified pathogenic/likely pathogenic mutations in 24 (32%) women with BC and in three (18%) women and four (24%) men diagnosed with CCR at under 50 years. Among the tested patients under 50 years with diagnosed BC and CCR, 98.6% and 97% present criteria for HCS, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed the association of several factors associated with BC, CCR, prostate, and lung cancers and reinforced the importance of evaluating FHC and genetic testing, especially for patients under 50 years with diagnosed BC or CCR. A better understanding of population-specific cancer risk factors builds on sustainable data for developing prevention strategies. These efforts increase the commitment to early detection and surveillance.

Pressure injury prevention measures: overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: Summarizing the evidence from systematic reviews regarding the comparison the effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injuries. METHOD: Overview of systematic reviews conducted in accordance with Cochrane guidelines. A search was performed in databases, repositories and systematic review registration sites. RESULTS: 15 reviews were included in this overview. The sensitivity analysis showed a reduction in the incidence of pressure injuries with nutritional supplementation compared to the standard hospital diet (Relative Risk (RR) = 0.83; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.72-0.95). There was evidence of the superiority of constant low-pressure surfaces (RR = 0.38; 95% CI;0.24-0.61), alternating pressure devices (RR = 0.31; 95% CI:0.17-0.58) and alternative foams (RR = 0.40; 95% CI:0.21-0.74) when compared to the standard hospital mattress or standard foam. The use of a silicone cover reduced the incidence of pressure injuries by 75% (RR = 0.25; 95%CI:0.16-0.41) when compared to no cover. CONCLUSION: Although some interventions have been shown to be effective in reducing the incidence of pressure injury, the evidence is limited or very limited and subject to change. Registration CRD42017064586.

Real-Life Data on Hydroxychloroquine or Chloroquine with or Without Azithromycin in COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Analysis in Brazil. / Dados de Vida Real sobre o Uso da Hidroxicloroquina ou da Cloroquina Combinadas ou Não à Azitromicina em Pacientes com Covid-19: Uma Análise Retrospectiva no Brasil.

BACKGROUND: Despite no evidence showing benefits of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine with or without azithromycin for COVID-19 treatment, these medications have been largely prescribed in Brazil. OBJECTIVES: To assess outcomes, including in-hospital mortality, electrocardiographic abnormalities, hospital length-of-stay, admission to the intensive care unit, and need for dialysis and mechanical ventilation, in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, and to compare outcomes between those patients and their matched controls. METHODS: A retrospective multicenter cohort study that included consecutive laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients from 37 Brazilian hospitals from March to September 2020. Propensity score was used to select matching controls by age, sex, cardiovascular comorbidities, and in-hospital use of corticosteroid. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: From 7,850 COVID-19 patients, 673 (8.6%) received hydroxychloroquine and 67 (0.9%) chloroquine. The median age in the study group was 60 years (46 - 71) and 59.1% were women. During hospitalization, 3.2% of patients presented side effects and 2.2% required therapy discontinuation. Electrocardiographic abnormalities were more prevalent in the chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine group (13.2% vs. 8.2%, p=0.01), and the long corrected QT interval was the main difference (3.6% vs. 0.4%, p<0.001). The median hospital length of stay was longer in the HCQ/CQ + AZT group than in controls (9.0 [5.0, 18.0] vs. 8.0 [4.0, 14.0] days). There was no statistical differences between groups in intensive care unit admission (35.1% vs. 32.0%; p=0.282), invasive mechanical ventilation support (27.0% vs. 22.3%; p=0.074) or mortality (18.9% vs. 18.0%; p=0.682). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 patients treated with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine had a longer hospital length of stay, when compared to matched controls. Intensive care unit admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, dialysis and in-hospital mortality were similar.

FUNDAMENTO: Apesar da ausência de evidência mostrando benefícios da hidroxicloroquina e da cloroquina combinadas ou não à azitromicina no tratamento da covid-19, esses medicamentos têm sido amplamente prescritos no Brasil. OBJETIVOS: Avaliar desfechos, incluindo moralidade hospitalar, alterações eletrocardiográficas, tempo de internação, admissão na unidade de terapia intensiva, e necessidade de diálise e de ventilação mecânica em pacientes hospitalizados com covid-19 que receberam cloroquina ou hidroxicloroquina, e comparar os desfechos entre aqueles pacientes e seus controles pareados. MÉTODOS: Estudo multicêntrico retrospectivo do tipo coorte que incluiu pacientes com diagnóstico laboratorial de covid-19 de 37 hospitais no Brasil de março a setembro de 2020. Escore de propensão foi usado para selecionar controles pareados quanto a idade, sexo, comorbidades cardiovasculares, e uso de corticosteroides durante a internação. Um valor de p<0,05 foi considerado estatisticamente significativo. RESULTADOS: Dos 7850 pacientes com covid-19, 673 (8,6%) receberam hidroxicloroquina e 67 (0,9%) cloroquina. A idade mediana no grupo de estudo foi 60 (46-71) anos e 59,1% eram mulheres. Durante a internação, 3,2% dos pacientes apresentaram efeitos adversos e 2,2% necessitaram de interromper o tratamento. Alterações eletrocardiográficas foram mais prevalentes no grupo hidroxicloroquina/cloroquina (13,2% vs. 8,2%, p=0,01), e o prolongamento do intervalo QT corrigido foi a principal diferença (3,6% vs. 0,4%, p<0,001). O tempo mediano de internação hospitalar foi maior no grupo usando CQ/HCQ em relação aos controles (9,0 [5,0-18,0] vs. 8,0 [4,0-14,0] dias). Não houve diferenças estatisticamente significativas entre os grupos quanto a admissão na unidade de terapia intensiva (35,1% vs. 32,0%; p=0,282), ventilação mecânica invasiva (27,0% vs. 22,3%; p=0,074) ou mortalidade (18,9% vs. 18,0%; p=0,682). CONCLUSÃO: Pacientes com covid-19 tratados com cloroquina ou hidroxicloroquina apresentaram maior tempo de internação hospitalar, em comparação aos controles. Não houve diferença em relação a admissão em unidade de terapia intensiva, necessidade de ventilação mecânica e mortalidade hospitalar.

COVID-19 outcomes in people living with HIV: Peering through the waves.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients infected with HIV, and to compare with a paired sample without HIV infection. METHODS: This is a substudy of a Brazilian multicentric cohort that comprised two periods (2020 and 2021). Data was obtained through the retrospective review of medical records. Primary outcomes were admission to the intensive care unit, invasive mechanical ventilation, and death. Patients with HIV and controls were matched for age, sex, number of comorbidities, and hospital of origin using the technique of propensity score matching (up to 4:1). They were compared using the Chi-Square or Fisher's Exact tests for categorical variables and the Wilcoxon for numerical variables. RESULTS: Throughout the study, 17,101 COVID-19 patients were hospitalized, and 130 (0.76%) of those were infected with HIV. The median age was 54 (IQR: 43.0;64.0) years in 2020 and 53 (IQR: 46.0;63.5) years in 2021, with a predominance of females in both periods. People Living with HIV (PLHIV) and their controls showed similar prevalence for admission to the ICU and invasive mechanical ventilation requirement in the two periods, with no significant differences. In 2020, in-hospital mortality was higher in the PLHIV compared to the controls (27.9% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.049), but there was no difference in mortality between groups in 2021 (25.0% vs. 25.1%; p > 0.999). CONCLUSIONS: Our results reiterate that PLHIV were at higher risk of COVID-19 mortality in the early stages of the pandemic, however, this finding did not sustain in 2021, when the mortality rate is similar to the control group.

Association between impairment and self-rated heath: a brazilian population study considering type, origin, and degree of limitation.

BACKGROUND: Perceived health is a well-known, low-cost measure in public health, and has been used in several studies on individuals with impairment. Although many studies have related impairment to self-rated health (SRH), few have considered the origin and degree of limitation of the impairment. This study examined whether physical, hearing, or visual impairments-when analyzed according to origin (congenital or acquired) and degree of limitation (with or without)-are associated with the SRH status. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used data of 43,681 adult individuals from the Brazilian National Health Survey (NHS, 2013). The outcome SRH was dichotomized into poor (including the regular, poor, and very poor responses) or good (including the good and very good responses). Crude and adjusted (for socio-demographic characteristics and chronic diseases history) prevalence ratios (PR) estimates were evaluated using Poisson regression models with the robust variance estimator. RESULTS: Poor SRH prevalence was estimated at 31.8% (95%CI:31.0-33.0) among the non-impaired population, 65.6% (95%CI:60.6-70.0) among individuals with physical impairment, 50.3% (95%CI:45.0-56.0) for people with hearing impairment, and 55.3% (95%CI:51.8-59.0) for the visually impaired. Individuals with congenital physical impairment-with or without limitations-presented the strongest association with the poorest SRH status. Participants with non-limiting, congenital hearing impairment showed a protective factor to poor SRH (PR = 0.40 95%CI: 0.38-0.52). Individuals with acquired visual impairment with limitations demonstrated the strongest association with poor SRH (PR = 1.48 95%CI:1.47-1.49). Among the impaired population, middle-aged participants showed a stronger association with poor SRH than older adult participants. CONCLUSIONS: Impairment is associated with poor SRH status, especially among people with physical impairment. The origin and degree of limitation of each type of impairment differently impacts SRH among the impaired population.

Potential and limitations of machine meta-learning (ensemble) methods for predicting COVID-19 mortality in a large inhospital Brazilian dataset.

The majority of early prediction scores and methods to predict COVID-19 mortality are bound by methodological flaws and technological limitations (e.g., the use of a single prediction model). Our aim is to provide a thorough comparative study that tackles those methodological issues, considering multiple techniques to build mortality prediction models, including modern machine learning (neural) algorithms and traditional statistical techniques, as well as meta-learning (ensemble) approaches. This study used a dataset from a multicenter cohort of 10,897 adult Brazilian COVID-19 patients, admitted from March/2020 to November/2021, including patients [median age 60 (interquartile range 48-71), 46% women]. We also proposed new original population-based meta-features that have not been devised in the literature. Stacking has shown to achieve the best results reported in the literature for the death prediction task, improving over previous state-of-the-art by more than 46% in Recall for predicting death, with AUROC 0.826 and MacroF1 of 65.4%. The newly proposed meta-features were highly discriminative of death, but fell short in producing large improvements in final prediction performance, demonstrating that we are possibly on the limits of the prediction capabilities that can be achieved with the current set of ML techniques and (meta-)features. Finally, we investigated how the trained models perform on different hospitals, showing that there are indeed large differences in classifier performance between different hospitals, further making the case that errors are produced by factors that cannot be modeled with the current predictors.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of hospital-manifested COVID-19 among Brazilians.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the clinical characteristics and outcomes of admitted patients with the hospital- versus community-manifested COVID-19 and to evaluate the risk factors related to mortality in the first population. METHODS: This retrospective cohort included consecutive adult patients with COVID-19, hospitalized between March and September 2020. The demographic data, clinical characteristics, and outcomes were extracted from medical records. Patients with hospital-manifested COVID-19 (study group) and those with community-manifested COVID-19 (control group) were matched by the propensity score model. Logistic regression models were used to verify the risk factors for mortality in the study group. RESULTS: Among 7,710 hospitalized patients who had COVID-19, 7.2% developed symptoms while admitted for other reasons. Patients with hospital-manifested COVID-19 had a higher prevalence of cancer (19.2% vs 10.8%) and alcoholism (8.8% vs 2.8%) than patients with community-manifested COVID-19 and also had a higher rate of intensive care unit requirement (45.1% vs 35.2%), sepsis (23.8% vs 14.5%), and death (35.8% vs 22.5%) (P <0.05 for all). The factors independently associated with increased mortality in the study group were increasing age, male sex, number of comorbidities, and cancer. CONCLUSION: Hospital-manifested COVID-19 was associated with increased mortality. Increasing age, male sex, number of comorbidities, and cancer were independent predictors of mortality among those with hospital-manifested COVID-19 disease.

Is there a better interceptive treatment for unerupted palatally displaced canines? A network meta-analysis.

This systematic review aimed to investigate if there is a better interceptive treatment for palatally displaced canines (PDC) in the mixed dentition stage. The PubMed/MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Scopus, and EMBASE databases were searched for randomized clinical trials related to the research topic. The gray literature and reference lists were also assessed. Network meta-analysis was conducted to analyze the effects of different approaches on PDC eruption. The surface under the cumulative ranking area was calculated to rank the treatments. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Of the 892 eligible studies, 18 were selected for full-text analysis and 9 for meta-analysis, involving 506 participants and 730 PDC, to compare 9 approaches. The proportion of erupted PDC was significantly higher for all interceptive treatments compared with control (no intervention). Furthermore, the proportion of erupted PDC was higher in patients subjected to rapid maxillary expansion (RME) than those who underwent double extraction of primary canine and primary molar (relative risk (RR) = 2.68 ICr95%: 1.12-9.35). A higher proportion of erupted PDC was found for RME (RR = 3.07 ICr95%: 1.31-10.67), RME plus use of transpalatal arch (TA) plus extraction of primary canine(s) (EC) (RR = 1.43 ICr95%: 1.09-1.95), EC plus use of cervical pull headgear (RR = 1.38 ICr95%: 1.11-1.79), and EC plus use of TA (RR = 1.36 ICr95%: 1.00-1.9) than for EC. RME was most likely to be considered as the best interceptive treatment. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was considered low due to imprecision and indirectness. In conclusion, no intervention in the mixed dentition stage is the worst choice for PDC.

Dados de Vida Real sobre o Uso da Hidroxicloroquina ou da Cloroquina Combinadas ou Não à Azitromicina em Pacientes com Covid-19: Uma Análise Retrospectiva no Brasil / Real-Life Data on Hydroxychloroquine or Chloroquine with or Without Azithromycin in COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Analysis in Brazil

Resumo Fundamento Apesar da ausência de evidência mostrando benefícios da hidroxicloroquina e da cloroquina combinadas ou não à azitromicina no tratamento da covid-19, esses medicamentos têm sido amplamente prescritos no Brasil. Objetivos Avaliar desfechos, incluindo moralidade hospitalar, alterações eletrocardiográficas, tempo de internação, admissão na unidade de terapia intensiva, e necessidade de diálise e de ventilação mecânica em pacientes hospitalizados com covid-19 que receberam cloroquina ou hidroxicloroquina, e comparar os desfechos entre aqueles pacientes e seus controles pareados. Métodos Estudo multicêntrico retrospectivo do tipo coorte que incluiu pacientes com diagnóstico laboratorial de covid-19 de 37 hospitais no Brasil de março a setembro de 2020. Escore de propensão foi usado para selecionar controles pareados quanto a idade, sexo, comorbidades cardiovasculares, e uso de corticosteroides durante a internação. Um valor de p<0,05 foi considerado estatisticamente significativo. Resultados Dos 7850 pacientes com covid-19, 673 (8,6%) receberam hidroxicloroquina e 67 (0,9%) cloroquina. A idade mediana no grupo de estudo foi 60 (46-71) anos e 59,1% eram mulheres. Durante a internação, 3,2% dos pacientes apresentaram efeitos adversos e 2,2% necessitaram de interromper o tratamento. Alterações eletrocardiográficas foram mais prevalentes no grupo hidroxicloroquina/cloroquina (13,2% vs. 8,2%, p=0,01), e o prolongamento do intervalo QT corrigido foi a principal diferença (3,6% vs. 0,4%, p<0,001). O tempo mediano de internação hospitalar foi maior no grupo usando CQ/HCQ em relação aos controles (9,0 [5,0-18,0] vs. 8,0 [4,0-14,0] dias). Não houve diferenças estatisticamente significativas entre os grupos quanto a admissão na unidade de terapia intensiva (35,1% vs. 32,0%; p=0,282), ventilação mecânica invasiva (27,0% vs. 22,3%; p=0,074) ou mortalidade (18,9% vs. 18,0%; p=0,682). Conclusão Pacientes com covid-19 tratados com cloroquina ou hidroxicloroquina apresentaram maior tempo de internação hospitalar, em comparação aos controles. Não houve diferença em relação a admissão em unidade de terapia intensiva, necessidade de ventilação mecânica e mortalidade hospitalar.

Abstract Background Despite no evidence showing benefits of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine with or without azithromycin for COVID-19 treatment, these medications have been largely prescribed in Brazil. Objectives To assess outcomes, including in-hospital mortality, electrocardiographic abnormalities, hospital length-of-stay, admission to the intensive care unit, and need for dialysis and mechanical ventilation, in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, and to compare outcomes between those patients and their matched controls. Methods A retrospective multicenter cohort study that included consecutive laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients from 37 Brazilian hospitals from March to September 2020. Propensity score was used to select matching controls by age, sex, cardiovascular comorbidities, and in-hospital use of corticosteroid. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results From 7,850 COVID-19 patients, 673 (8.6%) received hydroxychloroquine and 67 (0.9%) chloroquine. The median age in the study group was 60 years (46 - 71) and 59.1% were women. During hospitalization, 3.2% of patients presented side effects and 2.2% required therapy discontinuation. Electrocardiographic abnormalities were more prevalent in the chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine group (13.2% vs. 8.2%, p=0.01), and the long corrected QT interval was the main difference (3.6% vs. 0.4%, p<0.001). The median hospital length of stay was longer in the HCQ/CQ + AZT group than in controls (9.0 [5.0, 18.0] vs. 8.0 [4.0, 14.0] days). There was no statistical differences between groups in intensive care unit admission (35.1% vs. 32.0%; p=0.282), invasive mechanical ventilation support (27.0% vs. 22.3%; p=0.074) or mortality (18.9% vs. 18.0%; p=0.682). Conclusion COVID-19 patients treated with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine had a longer hospital length of stay, when compared to matched controls. Intensive care unit admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, dialysis and in-hospital mortality were similar.

COVID-19 outcomes in people living with HIV: Peering through the waves

Abstract Objective To evaluate clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients infected with HIV, and to compare with a paired sample without HIV infection. Methods This is a substudy of a Brazilian multicentric cohort that comprised two periods (2020 and 2021). Data was obtained through the retrospective review of medical records. Primary outcomes were admission to the intensive care unit, invasive mechanical ventilation, and death. Patients with HIV and controls were matched for age, sex, number of comorbidities, and hospital of origin using the technique of propensity score matching (up to 4:1). They were compared using the Chi-Square or Fisher's Exact tests for categorical variables and the Wilcoxon for numerical variables. Results Throughout the study, 17,101 COVID-19 patients were hospitalized, and 130 (0.76%) of those were infected with HIV. The median age was 54 (IQR: 43.0;64.0) years in 2020 and 53 (IQR: 46.0;63.5) years in 2021, with a predominance of females in both periods. People Living with HIV (PLHIV) and their controls showed similar prevalence for admission to the ICU and invasive mechanical ventilation requirement in the two periods, with no significant differences. In 2020, in-hospital mortality was higher in the PLHIV compared to the controls (27.9% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.049), but there was no difference in mortality between groups in 2021 (25.0% vs. 25.1%; p > 0.999). Conclusions Our results reiterate that PLHIV were at higher risk of COVID-19 mortality in the early stages of the pandemic, however, this finding did not sustain in 2021, when the mortality rate is similar to the control group.

Pressure injury prevention measures: overview of systematic reviews / Medidas de prevención de las lesiones por presión: overview de revisiones sistemáticas / Medidas de prevenção de lesão por pressão: overview derevisões sistemáticas

ABSTRACT Objective: Summarizing the evidence from systematic reviews regarding the comparison the effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injuries. Method: Overview of systematic reviews conducted in accordance with Cochrane guidelines. A search was performed in databases, repositories and systematic review registration sites. Results: 15 reviews were included in this overview. The sensitivity analysis showed a reduction in the incidence of pressure injuries with nutritional supplementation compared to the standard hospital diet (Relative Risk (RR) = 0.83; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.72-0.95). There was evidence of the superiority of constant low-pressure surfaces (RR = 0.38; 95% CI;0.24-0.61), alternating pressure devices (RR = 0.31; 95% CI:0.17-0.58) and alternative foams (RR = 0.40; 95% CI:0.21-0.74) when compared to the standard hospital mattress or standard foam. The use of a silicone cover reduced the incidence of pressure injuries by 75% (RR = 0.25; 95%CI:0.16-0.41) when compared to no cover. Conclusion: Although some interventions have been shown to be effective in reducing the incidence of pressure injury, the evidence is limited or very limited and subject to change. Registration CRD42017064586.

RESUMEN Objetivo: Resumir las pruebas de las revisiones sistemáticas sobre la comparación de la efectividad de las intervenciones para prevenir las lesiones por presión. Método: Resumen de las revisiones sistemáticas realizadas de acuerdo con las recomendaciones Cochrane. Se realizó una búsqueda en bases de datos, repositorios y sitios de registro de revisiones sistemáticas. Resultados: Se incluyeron 15 revisiones en esta revisión. El análisis de sensibilidad mostró una reducción de la incidencia de lesiones por presión con la suplementación nutricional en comparación con la dieta hospitalaria estándar (riesgo relativo [RR] = 0,83; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 0,72-0,95). Hubo pruebas de la superioridad de las superficies de baja presión constante (RR=0,38; IC del 95%:0,24-0,61), los dispositivos de presión alternante (RR = 0,31; IC del 95%:0,17-0,58) y las espumas alternativas (RR = 0,40; IC del 95%:0,21-0,74) en comparación con el colchón hospitalario estándar o la espuma estándar. El uso de una funda de silicona redujo la incidencia de lesiones por presión en un 75% (RR = 0,25; IC del 95%:0,16-0,41) en comparación con la ausencia de funda. Conclusión: Aunque algunas intervenciones han demostrado ser eficaces para reducir la incidencia de lesiones por presión, las pruebas son limitadas o muy limitadas y están sujetas a cambios. Registro CRD42017064586.

RESUMO Objetivo: Sumarizar as evidências de revisões sistemáticas sobre a comparação da efetividade de intervenções para prevenção de lesão por pressão. Método: Overview de revisões sistemáticas conduzida de acordo com as recomendações Cochrane. Realizou-se busca em bases de dados, repositórios e site de registro de revisões sistemáticas. Resultados: Foram incluídas 15 revisões nesta overview. A análise de sensibilidade demonstrou redução na incidência de lesão por pressão com a suplementação nutricional comparada a dieta hospitalar padrão (Risco Relativo (RR) = 0,83; Intervalo de Confiança(IC) 95%:0,72-0,95). Evidenciaram-se superioridade das superfícies de baixa pressão constante (RR = 0,38; IC 95%;0,24-0,61), dos dispositivos de pressão alternada (RR = 0,31; IC95%:0,17-0,58) e das espumas alternativas (RR = 0,40; IC95%:0,21-0,74) quando comparadas ao colchão hospitalar padrão ou de espuma padrão. O uso de cobertura de silicone reduziu em 75% a incidência de lesão por pressão (RR = 0,25; IC95%:0,16-0,41) quando comparada a nenhuma cobertura. Conclusão: Embora algumas intervenções demonstrem-se efetivas na redução da incidência da lesão por pressão, as evidências são limitadas ou muito limitadas e sujeitas a alteração. Registro CRD42017064586.

A systematic review and meta-analysis assessing antiretroviral therapy for treatment-experienced HIV adult patients using an optimized background therapy approach: is there evidence enough for a standardized third-line strategy?

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) has identified the need for evidence on third-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) for adults living with HIV/AIDS, given that some controversy remains as to the best combinations of ART for experienced HIV-1-infected patients. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to (i) assess the efficacy of third-line therapy for adults with HIV/AIDS based on randomized controlled trials (RCT) that adopted the "new antiretroviral (ARV) + optimized background therapy (OBT)" approach and (ii) address the key issues identified in WHO's guidelines on the use of third-line therapy. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, ISI Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for RCTs assessing third-line ARV therapy that used an OBT approach between 1966 and 2015. Data was extracted using an Excel-structured datasheet based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) recommendations. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis was the proportion of patients reaching undetectable HIV RNA levels (< 50 copies/mL) at 48 weeks of follow-up. Included studies were evaluated using the Cochrane's Risk of Bias assessment tool. Summarized evidence was rated according to the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Eighteen trials assessing 9 new ARV + OBT combinations defined as third-line HIV therapy provided the efficacy data: 7 phase IIb trials and 11 phase III trials. Four of the 18 trials provided extension data, thus resulting in 14 trials providing 48-week efficacy data. In the meta-analysis, considering the outcome regarding the proportion of patients with a viral load below 50 copies/ml at 48 weeks, 9 out of 14 trials demonstrated the superiority of the new combination being studied (risk difference = 0.18, 95% CI 0.13-0.23). The same analysis stratified by the number of fully active ARVs demonstrated a risk difference of 0.29 (95% CI 0.12-0.46), 0.28 (95% CI 0.17-0.38) and 0.17 (95% CI 0.10-0.24) respectively from zero, one, and two or more active drugs strata. Nine of the 18 trials were considered to have a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy results demonstrated that the groups of HIV-experienced patients receiving the new ARV + OBT were more likely to achieve viral suppression when compared to the control groups. However, most of these trials may be at a high risk of bias. Thus, there is still not enough evidence to stipulate which combinations are the most effective for therapeutic regimens that are to be used sequentially due to documented multi-resistance.

Frequency and burden of neurological manifestations upon hospital presentation in COVID-19 patients: Findings from a large Brazilian cohort.

BACKGROUND: Scientific data regarding the prevalence of COVID-19 neurological manifestations and prognosis in Latin America countries is still lacking. Therefore, the study aims to understand neurological manifestations of SARS-CoV 2 infection and outcomes in the Brazilian population. METHODS: This study is part of the Brazilian COVID-19 Registry, a multicentric cohort, including data from 37 hospitals. For the present analysis, patients were grouped according to the presence of reported symptoms (i.e., headache; anosmia and ageusia; syncope and dizziness) vs. clinically-diagnosed neurological manifestations (clinically-defined neurological syndrome: neurological signs or diagnoses captured by clinical evaluation) and matched with patients without neurological manifestations by age, sex, number of comorbidities, hospital of admission, and whether or not patients had underlying neurological disease. RESULTS: From 6,635 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, 30.8% presented reported neurological manifestations, 10.3% were diagnosed with a neurological syndrome and 60.1% did not show any neurological manifestations. In patients with reported symptoms, the most common ones were headache (20.7%), ageusia (11.1%) and anosmia (8.0%). In patients with neurological syndromes, acute encephalopathy was the most common diagnosis (9.7%). In the matched analysis, patients with neurological syndromes presented more cases of septic shock (17.0 vs. 13.0%, p = 0.045), intensive care unit admission (45.3 vs. 38.9%, p = 0.023), and mortality (38.7 vs. 32.6%, p = 0.026; and 39.2 vs. 30.3%, p < 0.001) when compared to controls. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 in-hospital patients with clinically defined neurological syndromes presented a higher incidence of septic shock, ICU admission and death when compared to controls.

Hospital characteristics associated with COVID-19 mortality: data from the multicenter cohort Brazilian Registry.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused unprecedented pressure over health care systems worldwide. Hospital-level data that may influence the prognosis in COVID-19 patients still needs to be better investigated. Therefore, this study analyzed regional socioeconomic, hospital, and intensive care units (ICU) characteristics associated with in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients admitted to Brazilian institutions. This multicenter retrospective cohort study is part of the Brazilian COVID-19 Registry. We enrolled patients ≥ 18 years old with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the participating hospitals from March to September 2020. Patients' data were obtained through hospital records. Hospitals' data were collected through forms filled in loco and through open national databases. Generalized linear mixed models with logit link function were used for pooling mortality and to assess the association between hospital characteristics and mortality estimates. We built two models, one tested general hospital characteristics while the other tested ICU characteristics. All analyses were adjusted for the proportion of high-risk patients at admission. Thirty-one hospitals were included. The mean number of beds was 320.4 ± 186.6. These hospitals had eligible 6556 COVID-19 admissions during the study period. Estimated in-hospital mortality ranged from 9.0 to 48.0%. The first model included all 31 hospitals and showed that a private source of funding (ß = - 0.37; 95% CI - 0.71 to - 0.04; p = 0.029) and location in areas with a high gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (ß = - 0.40; 95% CI - 0.72 to - 0.08; p = 0.014) were independently associated with a lower mortality. The second model included 23 hospitals and showed that hospitals with an ICU work shift composed of more than 50% of intensivists (ß = - 0.59; 95% CI - 0.98 to - 0.20; p = 0.003) had lower mortality while hospitals with a higher proportion of less experienced medical professionals had higher mortality (ß = 0.40; 95% CI 0.11-0.68; p = 0.006). The impact of those association increased according to the proportion of high-risk patients at admission. In-hospital mortality varied significantly among Brazilian hospitals. Private-funded hospitals and those located in municipalities with a high GDP had a lower mortality. When analyzing ICU-specific characteristics, hospitals with more experienced ICU teams had a reduced mortality.

Brazilian Reference Percentiles for Bioimpedance Phase Angle of Healthy Individuals.

Objectives: The present study was designed to estimate phase angle percentile curves for a broad age range of healthy individuals. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study of healthy Brazilian individuals aged five to 80. InBodyS10 was used to assess phase angle. Reference curves were stratified by sex and estimated using Generalized additive models for location, scale, and shape as a continuous function of age. The phase angle determinants analyzed were physical activity, age, BMI, and SES variables. Results: Data were analyzed from 2,146 individuals, 1,189 (55.2%) of whom were female. In both sexes, the phase angles showed a similar pattern (an increasing trend from childhood to the teenage phase, followed by stabilization during adult ages and a decrease in old adults). In female, the relationship between phase angle and age were associated with BMI and family income. In the male, the relationship between phase angle and age were associated with skin color and family income. Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, it is the first attempt to apply the GAMLSS technique to estimate phase angle percentiles in a healthy population covering most of the life cycle. We also showed that there are different phase angle determinants according to sex.

Net Survival in Survival Analyses for Patients with Cancer: A Scoping Review.

Population-based net survival is an important tool for assessing prognostic advances. The unbiased Pohar Perme Estimator (PPE) was suggested in 2012 and soon established itself as the gold standard for estimating net survival. This scoping review aims to know in which context this estimator is being used in the oncology area, what the authors point out as a justification for its use, and the limitations found. We searched PubMed, and the grey literature to answer the question: Have studies involving patients diagnosed with cancer used the PPE to estimate cancer-specific survival? How do they justify the use of the PPE and what are the limitations pointed out? Out of 295 screened, 85 studies were included in this review. The two main characteristics of the PPE mentioned by the studies as justification were the fact that it is an unbiased estimator (83.5%) and that it produces comparable estimates among populations with different mortality rates from causes other than cancer (36.47%). No study pointed to a limitation due to the use of PPE. As a conclusion, the Pohar Perme Estimator is the gold standard for estimating net survival and should be more used in oncology, especially when dealing with population-based studies where the follow-up time is long, making high the probability of death from causes other than cancer.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19: evidence beyond the hype.

BACKGROUND: The role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 is still under debate, yet the drug has been widely used in some parts of the world, as shown by impressive market data. The available body of evidence may have changed over the last months, as studies have been retracted and "standards of care" (SOC) used in control groups have changed with rapidly evolving knowledge on COVID-19. This review aims to summarize and critically appraise the evidence of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ivermectin, assessing clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: RCTs evaluating the effects of ivermectin in adult patients with COVID-19 were searched through June 22, 2022, in four databases, L.OVE platform, clinical trial registries and pre-prints platforms. Primary endpoints included all-cause mortality and invasive ventilation requirement. Secondary endpoint was the occurrence of adverse events. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Meta-analysis included only studies which compared ivermectin to placebo or SOC. Random-effects were used to pool the risk ratios (RRs) of individual trials. The quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. The protocol was register in PROSPERO (CRD42021257471). RESULTS: Twenty-five RCTs fulfilled inclusion criteria (n = 6310). Of those, 14 compared ivermectin with placebo, in night ivermectin associated with SOC was compared to SOC and two studies compared ivermectin to an active comparator. Most RCTs had some concerns or high risk of bias, mostly due to lack of concealment of the randomization sequence and allocation, lack of blinding and high number of missing cases. Ivermectin did not show an effect in reducing mortality (RR = 0.76; 95%CI: 0.52-1.11) or mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.74; 95%CI: 0.48-1.16). This effect was consistent when comparing ivermectin vs. placebo, and ivermectin associated with SOC vs. SOC, as well as in sensitivity analysis. Additionally, there was very low quality of evidence regarding adverse effects (RR = 1.07; 95%CI: 0.84-1.35). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that ivermectin does not reduce mortality risk and the risk of mechanical ventilation requirement. Although we did not observe an increase in the risk of adverse effects, the evidence is very uncertain regarding this endpoint.