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.

Breakthrough candidemia after the introduction of broad spectrum antifungal agents: A 5-year retrospective study.

Candidemia is the main invasive fungal disease among hospitalized patients. Several breakthrough candidemia (BrC) cases have been reported, but few studies evaluate the epidemiology, risk factors, molecular characterization, antifungal susceptibility profile and outcome of those patients, especially in developing countries and including patients using broad spectrum antifungals. We conducted a retrospective study from 2011 to 2016, including patients aged 12 years or older with candidemia. Epidemiological characteristics and risk factors for candidemia were evaluated and compared with patients with BrC using univariate and multivariate analysis. Sequential Candida isolates from BrC were identified by internal transcribed spacer sequencing, genotyped with amplified fragment length polymorphism fingerprinting (AFLP), and tested for antifungal susceptibility. From 148 candidemia episodes, 27 breakthrough episodes (18%) were identified, with neutropenia and mucositis being independent risk factors for BrC. Candida non-albicans was more frequent in the BrC group (P < .001). AFLP showed high correlation with conventional methods of identification among breakthrough isolates and a high genetic similarity among isolates from the same patient was observed. C. albicans was the most susceptible species with low MIC values for all antifungal agents tested. In contrast, we found isolates of C. glabrata, C. parapsilosis and C. tropicalis resistant to triazoles and echinocandins. In conclusion, BrC occurred mainly in severely immunosuppressed patients, with neutropenia and mucositis. Mortality did not differ between the groups. Candida non-albicans species were more recovered from BrC, with C. albicans being the most susceptible to antifungals.

Management of infection by the Zika virus.

A panel of national experts was convened by the Brazilian Infectious Diseases Society in order to organize the national recommendations for the management of zika virus infection. The focus of this document is the diagnosis, both clinical and laboratorial, and appropriate treatment of the diverse manifestations of this infection, ranging from acute mild disease to Guillain-Barré syndrome and also microcephaly and congenital malformations.

Candida glabrata: an emerging pathogen in Brazilian tertiary care hospitals.

Candida glabrata is an infrequent cause of candidemia in Brazilian public hospitals. We investigated putative differences in the epidemiology of candidemia in institutions with different sources of funding. Prospective laboratory-based surveillance of candidemia was conducted in seven private and two public Brazilian tertiary care hospitals. Among 4,363 episodes of bloodstream infection, 300 were caused by Candida spp. (6.9%). Incidence rates were significantly higher in public hospitals, i.e., 2.42 vs. 0.91 episodes per 1,000 admissions (P< 0.01). Patients in private hospitals were older, more likely to be in an intensive care unit and to have been exposed to fluconazole before candidemia. Candida parapsilosis was more frequently recovered as the etiologic agent in public (33% vs. 16%, P< 0.001) hospitals, whereas C. glabrata was more frequently isolated in private hospitals (13% vs. 3%, P < 0.001). Fluconazole resistance among C. glabrata isolates was more frequent in private hospitals (76.5% vs. 20%, P = 0.02). The 30-day mortality was slightly higher among patients in public hospitals (53% vs. 43%, P = 0.10). Candida glabrata is an emerging pathogen in private institutions and in this setting, fluconazole should not be considered as a safe option for primary therapy of candidemia.

Postsurgical pyoderma gangrenosum complicating reduction mammaplasty.

UNLABELLED: Reduction mammaplasty is one of the most common surgeries performed by plastic surgeons. It relieves back and neck pain and improves the aesthetic contour of the ptotic breast. Postsurgical pyoderma gangrenosum (PSPG) is an unusual inflammatory disorder leading to rapidly progressive skin necrosis that can occur after any surgical procedure. The skin lesions have the characteristic appearance of ulcers with a purple-colored border and erythematous halo. Clinically, the patient has a low fever and severe local pain. In the majority of cases this disease is misdiagnosed as severe infection leading to improper debridement, exacerbating the problem. The mainstay of therapy for PSPG is still nonoperative and focuses on immunosuppressive medications and local wound care, which allows healing in the majority of the cases. It is important for plastic surgeons and infectologists to be cognizant of this entity, as a delay in diagnosis and management can be life-threatening and lead to considerable tissue loss and disfigurement of the breast. The authors report a case of reduction mammaplasty complicated with PSPG and its treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Brazilian Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19: Joint guideline of Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia. / Diretrizes Brasileiras para o tratamento farmacológico de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19: Diretriz conjunta da Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia e Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia.

OBJECTIVE: Several therapies are being used or proposed for COVID-19, and many lack appropriate evaluations of their effectiveness and safety. The purpose of this document is to develop recommendations to support decisions regarding the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: A group of 27 experts, including representatives of the Ministry of Health and methodologists, created this guideline. The method used for the rapid development of guidelines was based on the adoption and/or adaptation of existing international guidelines (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) and supported by the e-COVID-19 RecMap platform. The quality of the evidence and the preparation of the recommendations followed the GRADE method. RESULTS: Sixteen recommendations were generated. They include strong recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in patients using supplemental oxygen, the use of anticoagulants at prophylactic doses to prevent thromboembolism and the nonuse of antibiotics in patients without suspected bacterial infection. It was not possible to make a recommendation regarding the use of tocilizumab in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 using oxygen due to uncertainties regarding the availability of and access to the drug. Strong recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, colchicine, lopinavir + ritonavir and antibiotics in patients without suspected bacterial infection and also conditional recommendations against the use of casirivimab + imdevimab, ivermectin and rendesivir were made. CONCLUSION: To date, few therapies have proven effective in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and only corticosteroids and prophylaxis for thromboembolism are recommended. Several drugs were considered ineffective and should not be used to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and promote economical resource use.

OBJETIVOS: Há diversas terapias sendo utilizadas ou propostas para a COVID-19, muitas carecendo de apropriada avaliação de efetividade e segurança. O propósito deste documento é elaborar recomendações para subsidiar decisões sobre o tratamento farmacológico de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 no Brasil. MÉTODOS: Um grupo de 27 membros, formado por especialistas, representantes do Ministério da Saúde e metodologistas, integra essa diretriz. Foi utilizado o método de elaboração de diretrizes rápidas, tomando por base a adoção e/ou a adaptação de recomendações a partir de diretrizes internacionais existentes (GRADE ADOLOPMENT), apoiadas pela plataforma e-COVID-19 RecMap. A qualidade das evidências e a elaboração das recomendações seguiram o método GRADE. RESULTADOS: Foram geradas 16 recomendações. Entre elas, estão recomendações fortes para o uso de corticosteroides em pacientes em uso de oxigênio suplementar, para o uso de anticoagulantes em doses de profilaxia para tromboembolismo e para não uso de antibacterianos nos pacientes sem suspeita de infecção bacteriana. Não foi possível fazer uma recomendação quanto à utilização do tocilizumabe em pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 em uso de oxigênio, pelas incertezas na disponibilidade e de acesso ao medicamento. Foi feita recomendação para não usar azitromicina, casirivimabe + imdevimabe, cloroquina, colchicina, hidroxicloroquina, ivermectina, lopinavir/ ritonavir, plasma convalescente e rendesivir. CONCLUSÃO: Até o momento, poucas terapias se provaram efetivas no tratamento do paciente hospitalizado com COVID-19, sendo recomendados apenas corticosteroides e profilaxia para tromboembolismo. Diversos medicamentos foram considerados ineficazes, devendo ser descartados, de forma a oferecer o melhor tratamento pelos princípios da medicina baseada em evidências e promover economia de recursos não eficazes.

Review of Ceftazidime-Avibactam for the Treatment of Infections Caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is an opportunistic Gram-negative pathogen that causes a range of serious infections that are often challenging to treat, as this pathogen can express multiple resistance mechanisms, including multidrug-resistant (MDR) and extensively drug-resistant (XDR) phenotypes. Ceftazidime-avibactam is a combination antimicrobial agent comprising ceftazidime, a third-generation semisynthetic cephalosporin, and avibactam, a novel non-ß-lactam ß-lactamase inhibitor. This review explores the potential role of ceftazidime-avibactam for the treatment of P. aeruginosa infections. Ceftazidime-avibactam has good in vitro activity against P. aeruginosa relative to comparator ß-lactam agents and fluoroquinolones, comparable to amikacin and ceftolozane-tazobactam. In Phase 3 clinical trials, ceftazidime-avibactam has generally demonstrated similar clinical and microbiological outcomes to comparators in patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections, complicated urinary tract infections or hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by P. aeruginosa. Although real-world data are limited, favourable outcomes with ceftazidime-avibactam treatment have been reported in some patients with MDR and XDR P. aeruginosa infections. Thus, ceftazidime-avibactam may have a potentially important role in the management of serious and complicated P. aeruginosa infections, including those caused by MDR and XDR strains.

Carbapenem-resistant bacilli in a hospital in southern Brazil: prevalence and therapeutic implications.

BACKGROUND: Gram-negative bacilli (GNB), notably Acinetobacter spp., Pseudomonas spp., and Klebsiella spp., are becoming increasingly resistant to carbapenems and are associated with high health care costs and mortality, becoming a global concern. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence rates of carbapenem resistance among Acinetobacter spp., Pseudomonas spp., and Klebsiella spp. in the main sites of nosocomial infection at a tertiary care hospital in southern Brazil and the consequent therapeutic implications. METHODS: Cultures processed at the institution's laboratory in 2017 were analyzed, and those positive for Acinetobacter spp., Pseudomonas spp., and Klebsiella spp. were identified. Antibiograms were evaluated for meropenem sensitivity following the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines. RESULTS: Acinetobacter spp. had the lowest prevalence among the three GNB, and resistance of this pathogen to meropenem at different sites of infection ranged from 36% (blood) to 82% (respiratory tract). Pseudomonas spp. was highly prevalent at the respiratory tract (31%) and had a high resistance rate to meropenem in rectal swab samples (71%), but a relatively low frequency at infection sites (skin/soft tissue, 13%; blood, 25%). Klebsiella spp. was identified in 7.5% of the blood cultures and 15% of the urine cultures and was the chief colonizer among all pathogens, representing 54% of all rectal swab samples, of which 53% were meropenem resistant. At sites of infection, rates of Klebsiella spp. resistant to meropenem ranged from 19% (skin) to 55% (vascular catheter). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of carbapenem-resistant GNB at our hospital was relatively low compared to national and international data; thus, meropenem remains a good therapeutic option against these bacteria. Other antibiotics effective against GNB, such as ceftazidime, cefepime, and piperacillin-tazobactam, can be used in most cases, while meropenem should be reserved for patients with sepsis. Strict contact precaution measures are still needed, given the high resistance rate observed at the colonizing site.

Joint report of SBI (Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases), FEBRASGO (Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Associations), SBU (Brazilian Society of Urology) and SBPC/ML (Brazilian Society of Clinical Pathology/Laboratory Medicine): recommendations for the clinical management of lower urinary tract infections in pregnant and non-pregnant women.

Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common condition in women. There is an increased concern on reduction of bacterial susceptibility resulting from wrongly prescribing antimicrobials. This paper summarizes the recommendations of four Brazilian medical societies (SBI - Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases, FEBRASGO - Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Associations, SBU - Brazilian Society of Urology, and SBPC/ML - Brazilian Society of Clinical Pathology/Laboratory Medicine) on the management of urinary tract infection in women. Asymptomatic bacteriuria should be screened at least twice during pregnancy (early and in the 3rd trimester). All cases of significant bacteriuria (≥105CFU/mL in middle stream sample) should be treated with antimicrobials considering safety and susceptibility profile. In women with typical symptoms of cystitis, dipsticks are not necessary for diagnosis. Urine cultures should be collected in pregnant women, recurrent UTI, atypical cases, and if there is suspicion of pyelonephritis. First line antimicrobials for cystitis are fosfomycin trometamol in a single dose and nitrofurantoin, 100mg every 6hours for five days. Second line drugs are cefuroxime or amoxicillin-clavulanate for seven days. During pregnancy, amoxicillin and other cephalosporins may be used, but with a higher chance of therapeutic failure. In recurrent UTI, all episodes should be confirmed by urine culture. Treatment should be initiated only after urine sampling and with the same regimens indicated for isolated episodes. Prophylaxis options of recurrent UTI are behavioral measures, non-antimicrobial and antimicrobial prophylaxis. Vaginal estrogens may be recommended for postmenopausal women. Other non-antimicrobial prophylaxis, including cranberry and immunoprophylaxis, have weak evidence supporting their use. Antimicrobial prophylaxis may be offered as a continuous or postcoital scheme. In pregnant women, options are cephalexin, 250-500mg and nitrofurantoin, 100mg (contraindicated after 37 weeks of pregnancy). Nonpregnant women may use fosfomycin trometamol, 3g every 10 days, or nitrofurantoin, 100mg (continuous or postcoital).

Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19. The task-force/consensus guideline of the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine, the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology. / Diretrizes para o tratamento farmacológico da COVID-19. Consenso da Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, da Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia e da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia.

INTRODUCTION: Different therapies are currently used, considered, or proposed for the treatment of COVID-19; for many of those therapies, no appropriate assessment of effectiveness and safety was performed. This document aims to provide scientifically available evidence-based information in a transparent interpretation, to subsidize decisions related to the pharmacological therapy of COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: A group of 27 experts and methodologists integrated a task-force formed by professionals from the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB), the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (Sociedad Brasileira de Infectologia - SBI) and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology (Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia - SBPT). Rapid systematic reviews, updated on April 28, 2020, were conducted. The assessment of the quality of evidence and the development of recommendations followed the GRADE system. The recommendations were written on May 5, 8, and 13, 2020. RESULTS: Eleven recommendations were issued based on low or very-low level evidence. We do not recommend the routine use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroids, or tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19. Prophylactic heparin should be used in hospitalized patients, however, no anticoagulation should be provided for patients without a specific clinical indication. Antibiotics and oseltamivir should only be considered for patients with suspected bacterial or influenza coinfection, respectively. CONCLUSION: So far no pharmacological intervention was proven effective and safe to warrant its use in the routine treatment of COVID-19 patients; therefore such patients should ideally be treated in the context of clinical trials. The recommendations herein provided will be revised continuously aiming to capture newly generated evidence.

Micafungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for candidaemia and invasive candidosis: a phase III randomised double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Invasive candidosis is increasingly prevalent in seriously ill patients. Our aim was to compare micafungin with liposomal amphotericin B for the treatment of adult patients with candidaemia or invasive candidosis. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, multinational non-inferiority study to compare micafungin (100 mg/day) with liposomal amphotericin B (3 mg/kg per day) as first-line treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidosis. The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as both a clinical and a mycological response at the end of treatment. Primary analyses were done on a per-protocol basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00106288. FINDINGS: 264 individuals were randomly assigned to treatment with micafungin; 267 were randomly assigned to receive liposomal amphotericin B. 202 individuals in the micafungin group and 190 in the liposomal amphotericin B group were included in the per-protocol analyses. Treatment success was observed for 181 (89.6%) patients treated with micafungin and 170 (89.5%) patients treated with liposomal amphotericin B. The difference in proportions, after stratification by neutropenic status at baseline, was 0.7% (95% CI -5.3 to 6.7). Efficacy was independent of the Candida spp and primary site of infection, as well as neutropenic status, APACHE II score, and whether a catheter was removed or replaced during the study. There were fewer treatment-related adverse events--including those that were serious or led to treatment discontinuation--with micafungin than there were with liposomal amphotericin B. INTERPRETATION: Micafungin was as effective as--and caused fewer adverse events than--liposomal amphotericin B as first-line treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidosis.

Cost-effectiveness of posaconazole in private and public Brazilian hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Posaconazole is used for the prophylaxis of invasive fungal disease (IFD). Previous studies have shown it to be cost-effective compared to fluconazole/itraconazole. However, posaconazole has never been economically evaluated in developing countries. AIMS: The aim of the present study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of posaconazole compared to fluconazole in public (SUS) and private hospitals (PHS) in Brazil. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness simulation was conducted on the basis of a pivotal study on the use of posaconazole in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients, adjusting the costs to Brazilian data. RESULTS: A pharmacoeconomic analysis was performed on a hypothetical sample of 100 patients in each drug group. The total cost of posaconazole use alone was USD$ 220,656.31, whereas that for fluconazole was USD$ 83,875.00. Our results showed that patients with IFD remain hospitalized for an additional 12 days, at an average cost of USD$ 850.85 per patient per day. The total money spent by PHS for 100 patients for 100 days was USD$ 342,318.00 for the posaconazole group and USD$ 302,039.00 for the fluconazole group. An analysis of sensitivity (10%) revealed no intergroup difference. CONCLUSIONS: In Brazil posaconazole is cost-effective, and should be considered for the prophylaxis of patients with AMD/myelodysplasia (AML/MDS) undergoing chemotherapy.

A prospective observational cohort study to assess the incidence of acute otitis media among children 0-5 years of age in Southern Brazil.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate acute otitis media incidence among young children and impact on quality of life of parents/caregivers in a southern Brazilian city. METHODS: Prospective cohort study including children 0-5 years of age registered at a private pediatric practice. Acute otitis media episodes diagnosed by a pediatrician and impact on quality of life of parents/caregivers were assessed during a 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: During September 2008-March 2010, of 1,136 children enrolled in the study, 1074 (95%) were followed: 55.0% were ≤2 years of age, 52.3% males, 94.7% white, and 69.2% had previously received pneumococcal vaccine in private clinics. Acute otitis media incidence per 1000 person-years was 95.7 (95% confidence interval: 77.2-117.4) overall, 105.5 (95% confidence interval: 78.3-139.0) in children ≤2 years of age and 63.6 (95% confidence interval: 43.2-90.3) in children 3-5 years of age. Acute otitis media incidence per 1000 person-years was 86.3 (95% confidence interval: 65.5-111.5) and 117.1 (95% confidence interval: 80.1-165.3) among vaccinated and unvaccinated children, respectively. Nearly 68.9% of parents reported worsening of their overall quality of life. CONCLUSION: Acute otitis media incidence among unvaccinated children in our study may be useful as baseline data to assess impact of pneumococcal vaccine introduction in the Brazilian National Immunization Program in April 2010.

Diretrizes Brasileiras para o tratamento farmacológico de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19: Diretriz conjunta da Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia e Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia / Brazilian Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19: Joint guideline of Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia

Há diversas terapias sendo utilizadas ou propostas para a COVID-19, muitas carecendo de apropriada avaliação de efetividade e segurança. O propósito deste documento é elaborar recomendações para subsidiar decisões sobre o tratamento farmacológico de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 no Brasil. Métodos: Um grupo de 27 membros, formado por especialistas, representantes do Ministério da Saúde e metodologistas, integra essa diretriz. Foi utilizado o método de elaboração de diretrizes rápidas, tomando por base a adoção e/ou a adaptação de recomendações a partir de diretrizes internacionais existentes (GRADE ADOLOPMENT), apoiadas pela plataforma e-COVID-19 RecMap. A qualidade das evidências e a elaboração das recomendações seguiram o método GRADE. Resultados: Foram geradas 16 recomendações. Entre elas, estão recomendações fortes para o uso de corticosteroides em pacientes em uso de oxigênio suplementar, para o uso de anticoagulantes em doses de profilaxia para tromboembolismo e para não uso de antibacterianos nos pacientes sem suspeita de infecção bacteriana. Não foi possível fazer uma recomendação quanto à utilização do tocilizumabe em pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 em uso de oxigênio, pelas incertezas na disponibilidade e de acesso ao medicamento. Foi feita recomendação para não usar azitromicina, casirivimabe + imdevimabe, cloroquina, colchicina, hidroxicloroquina, ivermectina, lopinavir/ ritonavir, plasma convalescente e rendesivir. Conclusão: Até o momento, poucas terapias se provaram efetivas no tratamento do paciente hospitalizado com COVID-19, sendo recomendados apenas corticosteroides e profilaxia para tromboembolismo. Diversos medicamentos foram considerados ineficazes, devendo ser descartados, de forma a oferecer o melhor tratamento pelos princípios da medicina baseada em evidências e promover economia de recursos não eficazes.

Several therapies are being used or proposed for COVID-19, and many lack appropriate evaluations of their effectiveness and safety. The purpose of this document is to develop recommendations to support decisions regarding the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Brazil. Methods: A group of 27 experts, including representatives of the Ministry of Health and methodologists, created this guideline. The method used for the rapid development of guidelines was based on the adoption and/or adaptation of existing international guidelines (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) and supported by the e-COVID-19 RecMap platform. The quality of the evidence and the preparation of the recommendations followed the GRADE method. Results: Sixteen recommendations were generated. They include strong recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in patients using supplemental oxygen, the use of anticoagulants at prophylactic doses to prevent thromboembolism and the nonuse of antibiotics in patients without suspected bacterial infection. It was not possible to make a recommendation regarding the use of tocilizumab in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 using oxygen due to uncertainties regarding the availability of and access to the drug. Strong recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, colchicine, lopinavir + ritonavir and antibiotics in patients without suspected bacterial infection and also conditional recommendations against the use of casirivimab + imdevimab, ivermectin and rendesivir were made. Conclusion: To date, few therapies have proven effective in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and only corticosteroids and prophylaxis for thromboembolism are recommended. Several drugs were considered ineffective and should not be used to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and promote economical resource use.

Joint report of SBI (Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases), FEBRASGO (Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Associations), SBU (Brazilian Society of Urology) and SBPC/ML (Brazilian Society of Clinical Pathology/Laboratory Medicine): recommendations for the clinical management of lower urinary tract infections in pregnant and non-pregnant women

Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common condition in women. There is an increased concern on reduction of bacterial susceptibility resulting from wrongly prescribing antimicrobials. This paper summarizes the recommendations of four Brazilian medical societies (SBI ­ Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases, FEBRASGO ­ Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Associations, SBU ­ Brazilian Society of Urology, and SBPC/ML ­ Brazilian Society of Clinical Pathology/Laboratory Medicine) on the management of urinary tract infection in women. Asymptomatic bacteriuria should be screened at least twice during pregnancy (early and in the 3rd trimester). All cases of significant bacteriuria (≥105 CFU/mL in middle stream sample) should be treated with antimicrobials considering safety and susceptibility profile. In women with typical symptoms of cystitis, dipsticks are not necessary for diagnosis. Urine cultures should be collected in pregnant women, recurrent UTI, atypical cases, and if there is suspicion of pyelonephritis. First line antimicrobials for cystitis are fosfomycin trometamol in a single dose and nitrofurantoin, 100 mg every 6 hours for five days. Second line drugs are cefuroxime or amoxicillin-clavulanate for seven days. During pregnancy, amoxicillin and other cephalosporins may be used, but with a higher chance of therapeutic failure. In recurrent UTI, all episodes should be confirmed by urine culture. Treatment should be initiated only after urine sampling and with the same regimens indicated for isolated episodes. Prophylaxis options of recurrent UTI are behavioral measures, nonantimicrobial and antimicrobial prophylaxis. Vaginal estrogens may be recommended for postmenopausal women. Other non-antimicrobial prophylaxis, including cranberry and immunoprophylaxis, have weak evidence supporting their use. Antimicrobial prophylaxis may be offered as a continuous or postcoital scheme. In pregnant women, options are cephalexin, 250­500 mg and nitrofurantoin, 100 mg (contraindicated after 37 weeks of pregnancy). Nonpregnant women may use fosfomycin trometamol, 3 g every 10 days, or nitrofurantoin, 100 mg (continuous or postcoital)

Diretrizes para o tratamento farmacológico da COVID-19. Consenso da Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, da Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia e da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia / Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19. The task-force/consensus guideline of the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine, the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology

RESUMO Introdução: Há diversas terapias sendo utilizadas, consideradas ou propostas para o tratamento da COVID-19, muitas carecendo de apropriada avaliação de efetividade e segurança. O propósito deste documento é fornecer recomendações baseadas nas evidências científicas disponíveis e em sua interpretação transparente, para subsidiar decisões sobre o tratamento farmacológico da COVID-19 no Brasil. Métodos: Um grupo de 27 especialistas e metodologistas integraram a força-tarefa formada pela Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira (AMIB), pela Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia (SBI) e pela Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia (SBPT). Foram realizadas revisões sistemáticas rápidas, atualizadas até 28 de abril de 2020. A qualidade das evidências e a elaboração das recomendações seguiram o sistema GRADE. As recomendações foram elaboradas nos dias 5, 8 e 13 de maio de 2020. Resultados: Foram geradas 11 recomendações, embasadas em evidência de nível baixo ou muito baixo. Não há indicação para uso de rotina de hidroxicloroquina, cloroquina, azitromicina, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroides ou tocilizumabe no tratamento da COVID-19. Heparina deve ser utilizada em doses profiláticas no paciente hospitalizado, mas não deve ser realizada anticoagulação na ausência de indicação clínica específica. Antibacterianos e oseltamivir devem ser considerados somente nos pacientes em suspeita de coinfecção bacteriana ou por influenza, respectivamente. Conclusão: Até o momento, não há intervenções farmacológicas com efetividade e segurança comprovada que justifiquem seu uso de rotina no tratamento da COVID-19, devendo os pacientes serem tratados preferencialmente no contexto de pesquisa clínica. As recomendações serão revisadas continuamente, de forma a capturar a geração de novas evidências.

ABSTRACT Introduction: Different therapies are currently used, considered, or proposed for the treatment of COVID-19; for many of those therapies, no appropriate assessment of effectiveness and safety was performed. This document aims to provide scientifically available evidence-based information in a transparent interpretation, to subsidize decisions related to the pharmacological therapy of COVID-19 in Brazil. Methods: A group of 27 experts and methodologists integrated a task-force formed by professionals from the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB), the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (Sociedad Brasileira de Infectologia - SBI) and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology (Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia - SBPT). Rapid systematic reviews, updated on April 28, 2020, were conducted. The assessment of the quality of evidence and the development of recommendations followed the GRADE system. The recommendations were written on May 5, 8, and 13, 2020. Results: Eleven recommendations were issued based on low or very-low level evidence. We do not recommend the routine use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroids, or tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19. Prophylactic heparin should be used in hospitalized patients, however, no anticoagulation should be provided for patients without a specific clinical indication. Antibiotics and oseltamivir should only be considered for patients with suspected bacterial or influenza coinfection, respectively. Conclusion: So far no pharmacological intervention was proven effective and safe to warrant its use in the routine treatment of COVID-19 patients; therefore such patients should ideally be treated in the context of clinical trials. The recommendations herein provided will be revised continuously aiming to capture newly generated evidence.