Economic burden of respiratory syncytial and parainfluenza viruses in children of upper-middle-income countries: a systematic review

Abstract Objective: To identify and assess the current evidence available about the costs of managing hospitalized pediatric patients diagnosed with Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) and Parainfluenza Virus Type 3 (PIV3) in upper-middle-income countries. Methods: The authors conducted a systematic review across seven key databases from database inception to July 2022. Costs extracted were converted into 2022 International Dollars using the Purchasing Power Parity-adjusted. PROSPERO identifier: CRD42020225757. Results: No eligible study for PIV3 was recovered. For RSV, cost analysis and COI studies were performed for populations in Colombia, China, Malaysia, and Mexico. Comparing the total economic impact, the lowest cost per patient at the pediatric ward was observed in Malaysia ($ 347.60), while the highest was in Colombia ($ 709.66). On the other hand, at pediatric ICU, the lowest cost was observed in China ($ 1068.26), while the highest was in Mexico ($ 3815.56). Although there is no consensus on the major cost driver, all included studies described that the medications (treatment) consumed over 30% of the total cost. A high rate of inappropriate prescription drugs was observed. Conclusion: The present study highlighted how RSV infection represents a substantial economic burden to health care systems and to society. The findings of the included studies suggest a possible association between baseline risk status and expenditures. Moreover, it was observed that an important amount of the cost is destinated to treatments that have no evidence or support in most clinical practice guidelines.

Recommendations for evaluation and diagnosis of extra-glandular manifestations of primary Sjögren syndrome: results of an epidemiologic systematic review/ meta-analysis and a consensus guideline from the Brazilian society of rheumatology (hepatic, gastrointestinal and pancreatic)

Abstract Sjogren's syndrome (SS) is an autoimmune disease characterized by lymphocytic infiltration of the exocrine glands and other organs, associated with sicca syndrome but also with systemic involvement with varying degrees of severity. Despite their importance, some systemic manifestations, mainly liver, gastrointestinal, and pancreatic are not routinely evaluated. To address these manifestations, the Sjögren's Syndrome Committee of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology conducted a broad systematic review of the literature on studies investigating prevalence and diagnosis of these symptoms in Sjogren´s patients and made recommendations based on the findings. Agreement between the experts was achieved using the Delphi method. This is the second part of this guideline, providing 6 recommendations for liver, gastrointestinal, and pancreatic care of SS patients.

Recommendations for evaluation and diagnosis of extra-glandular manifestations of primary sjogren syndrome: results of an epidemiologic systematic review/ meta-analysis and a consensus guideline from the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology (articular, pulmonary and renal)

Abstract Sjogren's Syndrome (SS) is an autoimmune disease characterized by lymphocytic infiltration of the exocrine glands and other organs, associated with sicca syndrome but also with systemic involvement with varying degrees of severity. Despite their importance, these systemic manifestations are not routinely evaluated and there is no homogenous approach to their diagnosis or evaluation. To close this gap, a panel of experts from the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the identification of epidemiologic and clinical features of these manifestations and made recommendations based on the findings. Agreement between the experts was achieved using the Delphi method. The first part of this guideline summarizes the most important topics, and 11 recommendations are provided for the articular, pulmonary, and renal care of SS patients.

COVID-19 and patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases undergoing pharmacological treatments: a rapid living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID) are at increased risk of infection. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether patients undergoing pharmacological treatment for IMID present higher risk of worse outcomes when diagnosed with COVID-19. DESIGN AND SETTING: Rapid systematic review conducted in the medical school of the Federal University of São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, SCOPUS, Web of Science, L·OVE, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO-ICTRP for studies evaluating patients diagnosed with COVID-19 who were undergoing pharmacological treatment for IMID. Two authors selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence, following the Cochrane recommendations. RESULTS: We identified 1,498 references, from which one cohort study was included. This compared patients with and without rheumatic diseases (RD) who all had been diagnosed with COVID-19. Those with RD seemed to have higher chances of hospitalization and mortality, but no statistical difference was detected between the groups: hospitalization: odds ratio (OR) 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.6 to 2.29; mortality rate: OR 1.53; 95% CI 0.33 to 7.11 (very low certainty of evidence). Patients with RD were three times more likely to require admission to intensive care units (ICUs), with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), than those without RD: OR 3.72; 95% CI 1.35 to 10.26 (for both outcomes; very low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing pharmacological treatment for IMID seem to present higher chances of requiring admission to ICUs, with IMV. Additional high-quality studies are needed to analyze the effects of different treatments for IMID.

COVID-19 and patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases undergoing pharmacological treatments: a rapid living systematic review

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID) are at increased risk of infection. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether patients undergoing pharmacological treatment for IMID present higher risk of worse outcomes when diagnosed with COVID-19. DESIGN AND SETTING: Rapid systematic review conducted in the medical school of the Federal University of São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, SCOPUS, Web of Science, L·OVE, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO-ICTRP for studies evaluating patients diagnosed with COVID-19 who were undergoing pharmacological treatment for IMID. Two authors selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence, following the Cochrane recommendations. RESULTS: We identified 1,498 references, from which one cohort study was included. This compared patients with and without rheumatic diseases (RD) who all had been diagnosed with COVID-19. Those with RD seemed to have higher chances of hospitalization and mortality, but no statistical difference was detected between the groups: hospitalization: odds ratio (OR) 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.6 to 2.29; mortality rate: OR 1.53; 95% CI 0.33 to 7.11 (very low certainty of evidence). Patients with RD were three times more likely to require admission to intensive care units (ICUs), with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), than those without RD: OR 3.72; 95% CI 1.35 to 10.26 (for both outcomes; very low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing pharmacological treatment for IMID seem to present higher chances of requiring admission to ICUs, with IMV. Additional high-quality studies are needed to analyze the effects of different treatments for IMID.

SARS-CoV-2 and arbovirus infection: a rapid systematic review

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: The numbers of cases of arboviral diseases have increased in tropical and subtropical regions while the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic overwhelms healthcare systems worldwide. The clinical manifestations of arboviral diseases, especially dengue fever, can be very similar to COVID-19, and misdiagnoses are still a reality. In the meantime, outcomes for patients and healthcare systems in situations of possible syndemic have not yet been clarified. OBJECTIVE: We set out to conduct a systematic review to understand and summarize the evidence relating to clinical manifestations, disease severity and prognoses among patients coinfected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and arboviruses. METHODS: We conducted a rapid systematic review with meta-analysis, on prospective and retrospective cohorts, case-control studies and case series of patients with confirmed diagnoses of SARS-CoV-2 and arboviral infection. We followed the Cochrane Handbook recommendations. We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Scopus and Web of Science to identify published, ongoing and unpublished studies. We planned to extract data and assess the risk of bias and the certainty of evidence of the studies included, using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment. RESULTS: We were able to retrieve 2,407 citations using the search strategy, but none of the studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. CONCLUSION: The clinical presentations, disease severity and prognoses of patients coinfected with SARS-CoV-2 and arboviruses remain unclear. Further prospective studies are necessary in order to provide useful information for clinical decision-making processes. Protocol registration number in the PROSPERO database: CRD42020183460

SARS-CoV-2 and arbovirus infection: a rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The numbers of cases of arboviral diseases have increased in tropical and subtropical regions while the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic overwhelms healthcare systems worldwide. The clinical manifestations of arboviral diseases, especially dengue fever, can be very similar to COVID-19, and misdiagnoses are still a reality. In the meantime, outcomes for patients and healthcare systems in situations of possible syndemic have not yet been clarified. OBJECTIVE: We set out to conduct a systematic review to understand and summarize the evidence relating to clinical manifestations, disease severity and prognoses among patients coinfected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and arboviruses. METHODS: We conducted a rapid systematic review with meta-analysis, on prospective and retrospective cohorts, case-control studies and case series of patients with confirmed diagnoses of SARS-CoV-2 and arboviral infection. We followed the Cochrane Handbook recommendations. We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Scopus and Web of Science to identify published, ongoing and unpublished studies. We planned to extract data and assess the risk of bias and the certainty of evidence of the studies included, using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment. RESULTS: We were able to retrieve 2,407 citations using the search strategy, but none of the studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. CONCLUSION: The clinical presentations, disease severity and prognoses of patients coinfected with SARS-CoV-2 and arboviruses remain unclear. Further prospective studies are necessary in order to provide useful information for clinical decision-making processes. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER IN THE PROSPERO DATABASE: CRD42020183460.

Telehealth interventions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: Protocol for a scoping review

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: The current health crisis due to COVID-19 is forcing us to profoundly rethink our social organizations and practices in health. While there is no effective treatment for the virus, staying home and social isolation are the control measures recommended by health authorities. The aim of this study is to perform a scoping review in order to summarize the current evidence in telehealth for COVID-19. METHODS: This study is a protocol to describe the rationale, hypothesis and planned methods of our scoping review. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, qualitative studies, and/or case series that describe telehealth interventions applied or developed to respond to COVID-19. We will search Medline via PubMed, Embase via Elsevier, Cochrane Library - Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Portal Regional BVS - LILACS, and Scopus. We will include studies performed since December 2019 with no language restrictions. We will use the Risk of Bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to perform the critical appraisal of included studies. We will assess the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

PROGNOSTIC FACTORS FOR CLINICAL COURSE OF PATIENTS WITH COVID-19: PROTOCOL FOR A RAPID LIVING SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Determining prognostic factors in a context of health crises such as the COVID-19 scenario may provide the best possible care for patients and optimize the management and the resource utilization of the health system. Thus, we aim to systematically review the prognostic factors for different outcomes of patients with COVID-19. DESIGN AND SETTING: Protocol for a rapid living systematic review methodology following the recommendations proposed by the Cochrane Handbook. METHODS: We will include cohorts and case­control studies. We will search Medline via PubMed, Embase via Elsevier, Cochrane Library - Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Portal Regional BVS- LILACS, Scopus and WebofScience to identify studies. No language restrictions will be applied. We will perform the critical appraisal of included studies with the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool and the certainty of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

COVID-19 AND PATIENTS UNDERGOING PHARMACOLOGICAL TREATMENTS FOR IMMUNE-MEDIATED INFLAMMATORY DISEASES: PROTOCOL FOR A RAPID LIVING SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: We propose to systematically review the available evidence to evaluate if patients with immune mediated or inflammatory diseases under pharmacological treatment with immunosuppressants, immunobiologics, DMARDs or targeted synthetic DMARDs have better or worse outcomes when infected by SARS-CoV-2. This study is a protocol for our rapid living systematic review. METHODS: Protocol for a rapid living systematic review methodology following the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) guidance. To conduct the rapid systematic review, we will employ abbreviated systematic review methods, including: not performing independent screens of abstracts and not searching grey literature. As this will be a living review, it will be continuously updated.

Pharmacological interventions for COVID-19: Protocol for a Rapid Living Systematic Review with network meta-analysis

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has emerged in China in December 2019 and rapidly spread. Although extraordinary efforts have been made on research regarding pharmacological interventions, none have proven effective. This is the protocol for a rapid living systematic review that aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of different pharmacological interventions for the treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: rapid living systematic review methodology with Network Meta-Analysis following the recommendations of Cochrane Handbook. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCTs that evaluate single and/or combined pharmacological interventions at any dose for the treatment of COVID-19. We will search Medline via PubMed, Embase via Elsevier, Cochrane Library - Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Portal Regional BVS - LILACS, Scopus and WebofScience to identify potentially eligible studies. No language restrictions will be used in the selection. We will perform the critical appraisal of included studies with the Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

SARS-COV-2 AND ARBOVIRUS INFECTIONS: PROTOCOL FOR A RAPID LIVING SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Context and objective: While cases of COVID-19 disease increase daily worldwide, outbreaks of arboviral infections have affected health systems of countries in tropical regions. The outcomes for patients and health systems of a possible syndemic are not clarified yet. Thus, we aim to systematically review the literature searching for evidence that describes the clinical presentation, severity and prognostic of SARS-CoV-2 and Arboviral coinfection. Design and setting: Protocol for a rapid living systematic review, that will follow the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews recommendations. We will include prospective and retrospective cohort, case-control studies and case series of patients with confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 and Arboviral infection. We will perform the search strategy with no language restrictions on Medline via PubMed, Embase via Elsevier, Cochrane Library - Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Portal Regional BVS - LILACS, Scopus and WebOfScience to identify published, ongoing, and unpublished studies. The selection and extraction will be performed by two authors. We will perform the critical appraisal of included studies with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the certainty of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).    

What do Cochrane systematic reviews say about telemedicine for healthcare?

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine has emerged as a tool for overcoming the challenges of healthcare systems and is likely to become increasingly viable, since information and communication technologies have become more sophisticated and user-friendly. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify all Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) on telemedicine within healthcare and to summarize the current evidence regarding its use. DESIGN AND SETTING: Review of CSRs, developed at the Discipline of Emergency and Evidence-Based Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo. METHODS: We searched for studies that compared use of telemedicine with conventional treatment or management of diseases within healthcare. Diagnostic telemedicine studies or studies using automatic text, voice-text or even self-managed care were excluded. The main characteristics and the certainty of evidence were synthetized and critically discussed by all authors. RESULTS: We included 10 CSRs that investigated a broad range of diseases. There is still insufficient evidence to determine what types of telemedicine interventions are effective, for which patients and in which settings, and whether such interventions can be used as a replacement for the standard treatment. Harm relating to telemedicine technologies needs to be better investigated and addressed. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine might be an excellent way to facilitate access to treatment, monitoring and dissemination of important clinical knowledge. However, given the recognition of systematic reviews as the best evidence resource available for decision-making, further randomized controlled trials with stricter methods are necessary to reduce the uncertainties in evidence-based use of telemedicine.

What do Cochrane systematic reviews say about telemedicine for healthcare?

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Telemedicine has emerged as a tool for overcoming the challenges of healthcare systems and is likely to become increasingly viable, since information and communication technologies have become more sophisticated and user-friendly. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify all Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) on telemedicine within healthcare and to summarize the current evidence regarding its use. DESIGN AND SETTING: Review of CSRs, developed at the Discipline of Emergency and Evidence-Based Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo. METHODS: We searched for studies that compared use of telemedicine with conventional treatment or management of diseases within healthcare. Diagnostic telemedicine studies or studies using automatic text, voice-text or even self-managed care were excluded. The main characteristics and the certainty of evidence were synthetized and critically discussed by all authors. RESULTS: We included 10 CSRs that investigated a broad range of diseases. There is still insufficient evidence to determine what types of telemedicine interventions are effective, for which patients and in which settings, and whether such interventions can be used as a replacement for the standard treatment. Harm relating to telemedicine technologies needs to be better investigated and addressed. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine might be an excellent way to facilitate access to treatment, monitoring and dissemination of important clinical knowledge. However, given the recognition of systematic reviews as the best evidence resource available for decision-making, further randomized controlled trials with stricter methods are necessary to reduce the uncertainties in evidence-based use of telemedicine.