RESUMO
IntroductionWith the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals in low-income countries were faced with a triple challenge. First, a large number of patients required hospitalization because of the infections more severe symptoms. Second, there was a lack of systematic and broad testing policies for early identification of cases. Third, there were weaknesses in the integration of information systems, which led to the need to search for available information from the hospital information systems. Accordingly, it is also important to state that relevant aspects of COVID-19s natural history had not yet been fully clarified. The aim of this research protocol is to present the strategies of a Brazilian network of hospitals to perform systematized data collection on COVID-19 through the World Health Organization (WHO) Platform. Methods and AnalysisThis is a multicenter project among Brazilian hospitals to provide data on COVID-19 through the WHO global platform, which integrates patient care information from different countries. From October 2020 to March 2021, a committee worked on defining a flowchart for this platform, specifying the variables of interest, data extraction standardization and analysis. Ethics and DisseminationThis protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee (CEP) of the Research Coordinating Center of Brazil (CEP of the Hospital Nossa Senhora da Conceicao), on January 29, 2021, under approval No. 4.515.519 and by the National Research Ethics Commission (CONEP), on February 5, 2021, under approval No. 4.526.456. The project results will be explained in WHO reports and published in international peer-reviewed journals, and summaries will be provided to the funders of the study. Strengths and limitations of this studyAs the study involves a convenience and non-probabilistic sample of patients hospitalized in health units, it may not represent the population of patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in the country. However, the information generated by this research can serve as a basis for the development of maps of the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 infection and public policies to face pandemics. It is a study that uses secondary data, and therefore, information bias may occur, but on the other hand, it has a low cost and facilitates a population-based study with national coverage. Article SummaryThis is a multicenter project among Brazilian hospitals to provide data on COVID-19 through the WHO global platform. It is expected to deepen knowledge about the pandemic scenario and help hospital institutions to develop preventive measures, health service protocols and strengthen the training of teams in the existing complications.
RESUMO
Background and purposeThe objective of this systematic review is to summarize the effects of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of patients with COVID-19 and to assess inconsistencies in results from individual studies with focus on risk of bias due to methodological limitations. Evidence reviewWe searched the L.OVE platform through July 6, 2021 and included randomized trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard or other active treatments. We conducted random-effects pairwise meta-analysis, assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach and performed sensitivity analysis excluding trials with risk of bias. ResultsWe included 29 RCTs which enrolled 5592 cases. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was very low to low. Compared to standard of care, ivermectin may reduce mortality, may increase symptom resolution or improvement, may increase viral clearance, may reduce infections in exposed individuals and may decrease hospitalizations (Risk difference (RD) 21 fewer per 1000, 95%CI: 35 fewer to 4 more). However, after excluding trials classified as "high risk" or "some concerns" in the risk of bias assessment, most estimates of effect changed substantially: Compared to standard of care, low certainty evidence suggests that ivermectin may not significantly reduce mortality (RD 7 fewer per 1000, 95%CI: 77 fewer to 108 more) nor mechanical ventilation (RD 6 more per 1000, 95%CI: 43 fewer to 86 more), and moderate certainty evidence shows that it probably does not significantly increase symptom resolution or improvement (RD 14 more per 1000, 95%CI: 29 fewer to 71 more) nor viral clearance (RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95%CI: 84 fewer to 76 more). It is uncertain if ivermectin increases or decreases severe adverse events and symptomatic infections in exposed individuals. Conclusions and RelevanceIvermectin may not improve clinically important outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and its effects as a prophylactic intervention in exposed individuals are uncertain. Previous reports concluding significant benefits associated with ivermectin are based on potentially biased results reported by studies with substantial methodological limitations. Further research is needed.
RESUMO
IntroductionThe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID19) pandemic has struck Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) particularly hard. One of the crucial areas in the international communitys response relates to accelerating research and knowledge sharing. The aim of this article is to map and characterise the existing empirical research related to COVID-19 in LAC countries and contribute to identify opportunities for strengthening future research. MethodsIn this scoping review, articles published between December 2019 and 11 November 2020 were selected if they included an empirical component (explicit scientific methods to collect and analyse primary data), LAC population was researched, and the research was about the COVID-19 pandemic, regardless of publication status or language. MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Scielo, CENTRAL and Epistemonikos were searched. All titles and abstracts, and full texts were screened by two independent reviewers. Data from included studies was extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second independent reviewer. Results14,406 records were found. After removing duplicates, 5,458 titles and abstracts were screened, of which 2,323 full texts were revised to finally include 1,626 empirical studies. The largest portion of research came from people/population of Brazil (54.6%), Mexico (19.1%), Colombia (11.2%), Argentina (10.4%), Peru (10.3%) and Chile (10%), while Caribbean countries concentrated 15.3%. The methodologies most used were cross-sectional studies (34.7%), simulation models (17.5%) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (13.6%). Using a modified version of WHOs COVID-19 Coordinated Global Research Roadmap classification, 54.2% were epidemiological studies, followed by clinical management (22.3%) and candidate therapeutics (12.2%). Government and public funds support were reported in 19.2% of studies, followed by universities or research centres (9%), but 47.5% did not include any funding statement. ConclusionDuring the first part of the COVID-19 pandemic, LAC countries have contributed to the global research effort primarily with epidemiological studies, with little participation on vaccines research, meaning that this type of knowledge would be imported from elsewhere. Research agendas could be further coordinated aiming to enhance shared self-sufficiency regarding knowledge needs in the region.
RESUMO
La endometriosis torácica es una entidad poco común con múltiples formas de presentación. El diagnóstico se realiza usualmente a partir de hallazgos clínicos como la recurrencia de neumotórax espontáneo, compromiso de hemitórax derecho y relación temporal con el período mestrual. En 1958 Maurer y col., reportaron por primera vez el síndrome de neumotórax espontáneo recurrente asociado a defectos diafragmáticos y endometriosis pélvica; desde entonces se han reportado múltiples casos en los que se relaciona a los implantes endometriales pleurales con el antecedente de endometriosis pélvica. Un sin número de tratamientos con resultados insatisfactorios han sido utilizados en esta condición. Este es el caso de una mujer de 41 años que consulta a institución de primer nivel de atención por cuadro de 8 horas de evolución consistente en tos, dolor en hemitórax derecho, disnea y signos clínicos sugestivos de neumotórax espontáneo. Dentro de los antecedentes ginecoobstétricos y generales de importancia se encuentran dos embarazos normales, dolor pélvico crónico e histerectomía abdominal total por adenomiosis y endometriosis pélvica severa; además endometriosis umbilical documentada por biopsia. Cuatro meses después del primer evento, la paciente nota síntomas torácicos similares a los referidos anteriormente y relacionados a neumotórax espontáneo recurrente, por lo que se le practica toracoscopia diagnóstica donde se encuentran lesiones pardas en el domo diafragmático derecho compatibles histológicamente con tejido endometrial