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.
Descritores: Coronavirus infections/drug therapy; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Betacoronavirus; GRADE; Guidelines; Brazil
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.
Descritores: Infecções por coronavirus/tratamento farmacológico; COVID-19; Betacoronavirus; SARS-CoV-2; GRADE; Diretrizes; Brasil
INTRODUCTION
Early in December 2019, the first cases of novel pneumonia from unknown etiology were described in the city of Wuhan, China. Subsequent studies have shown that it was caused by a new coronavirus, later called Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).(1,2) This infection caused by SARS-CoV-2 is called coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a new infectious disease affecting the respiratory tract and declared as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). The disease clinical features may range from asymptomatic or oligosymptomatic patients to severe respiratory failure cases requiring admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and progression to Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). In this context, the mortality may range between 26% and 86%.(3,4) In Brazil, the first reported case of COVID-19 was recorded on February 25, 2020, in a patient returning from a trip to Italy. On May 21, 2020, Brazil had already 291,579 cases reported, and 18,859 deaths.(5)
In the scenery of a pandemic, a large portion of actions and interventions are empirical and based on findings usually derived from in vitro experiments, anecdotical personal experiences, and small observational studies lacking appropriate methodology. There is a relentless and, sometimes, an uncoordinated quest for potential therapy, and uncertainly effective drugs are fastly disseminated as potential savior therapies and globally included in treatment protocols. The medical decision-making process, usually guided by a rational evidence-based approach, becomes emotional. Although understandable from a social and humanitarian point of view in the context of a pandemic, this process can lead to over therapy with treatments used without an indication, and the consequent risk of adverse events.(6-8) In such a context, guidelines are useful to guide healthcare professionals for a decision-making process based on the best evidence available.
This guideline for the treatment of COVID-19 patients is supported by the following medical societies: the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB), the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia - SBI) and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology (Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia - SBPT). Its main objective is to provide uniformity for therapeutic indications on the COVID-19 context and to guide these interventions utilizing the best evidence available at the time it is written.
METHODS
This guideline was prepared according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system for the assessment of evidence and development of the recommendations.(9) An approach according to the Guidelines International Network and McMaster University (GIN/McMaster) for the development of rapid recommendations checklist was used.(10) Our target audience is prescribing physicians who work in a public or private context, either in outpatient or hospital settings (including emergency departments and intensive care units).
The guideline development group
The group consisted of 27 members, including physicians experts in infectious diseases, internal medicine, pulmonology, and intensive care, in addition to pharmacists, epidemiologists, and public health experts. The recommendation panel was composed of 13 voting members, guideline methodologists (five members), and researchers responsible for the literature systematic review (nine members). The participants were indicated by the specialty societies or by the group methodologists, aiming to provide representativity and balance of technical competencies.
Potential conflicts of interest data were collected with the standard WHO formulary. Members with a direct financial conflict of interest related to a given intervention had no right to vote for the related questions. A list of participants, their role in the guideline, and statement of conflicts of interest are provided in appendix 1.
Research questions
The questions were first proposed by the group of methodologists, and revised by the panel experts. The inclusion criteria were: a drug available for prescription in Brazil, and a clinical practice variability, or a clinically relevant doubt related to its use, being this last the prioritizing factor for clinical questions.
Eight questions were prepared according to the acronym PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome), considering six drug classes (aminoquinolines, antivirals, antibiotics, corticosteroids, anticoagulants, and immunobiologicals). Each research question could generate one or more recommendations.
Remdesivir was not included in this document as, by the assessment time, it was not approved for prescription in Brazil. Were considered, but not prioritized, questions related to the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. During the conduction of the recommendations panel, the question on the use of heparin was requested to be included, once it was not part of the initial scope.
Evidence search and synthesis
The searches were conducted on MEDLINE (via PubMed®), the Cochrane CENTRAL, and Embase databases, and also in the grey-literature bases, between April 22 and 30, 2020. Additionally searches on prepublication articles sources, such as OpenGrey (http://www.opengrey.eu), meDrxiv (https://www.medrxiv.org), and Biorxiv (www.biorxiv.org) were conducted; these articles were considered during the analyses, even though not peer-reviewed. The search strategies are shown in appendix 2. Additional evidence, emerging during the process and identified by members of the group, were considered during the discussions, although not included in the initial search results.
Literature search, data extraction, and synthesis were performed by one single investigator and checked by a second revisor in case of doubts or inconsistencies.(11,12) The synthesis was conducted in a qualitative model. First, titles and abstracts of the identified manuscripts were identified by the search strategy, and potentially eligible studies preselected. Second, the full text of the selected papers was assessed, to confirm eligibility.
Considering the limited number of studies published so far, the following study designs were taken into consideration according to the evidence hierarchy: randomized clinical trials, quasi-randomized clinical trials, non-randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, series and case studies. The assessment of methodological quality and/or risk of bias of the included articles was conducted with tools appropriate for each study design: AMSTAR-2 for systematic reviews with and without metanalysis;(13) Cochrane’s risk of bias table for randomized clinical trials;(14) ROBINS-I for non-randomized or quasi-randomized clinical trials;(15) ROBINS-I or Newcastle-Ottawa for longitudinal comparative observational studies (case-control and cohort);(15,16) the Joanna Briggs Institute case-series tool for phase I or phase II trials without a direct comparator and case-series(17) and the Joanna Briggs Institute toll for cross-sectional studies.(18)
Assessment of certainty of the evidence and development of recommendations
The GRADE(9,19) system was used for the assessment of the quality of the evidence and the development of recommendations. Previously to the recommendations meetings, the certainty of the evidence was rated either as high, moderate, low, or very low (Table 1).
Levels of Evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)
According to this methodology, recommendations may be either strong or weak (conditionals), favorable or against the intervention. The implication of the strength of the recommendation is shown in table 2.
Strength of recommendation according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)
The data from the systematic review for each PICO question were compiled into evidence profiles and presented to the experts’ panel.(20-24) For the development of recommendations were considered: benefits, risks, quality of the evidence, costs, and variability of implementation. The recommendations were agreed upon by teleconferences held on May 5, May 8, and May 13, 2020.
Whenever appropriate, the panel could provide recommendations according to subpopulations. A consensus was aimed for all the recommendations; if no consensus could be achieved, a voting procedure was conducted, and a simple majority required for approval of that specific recommendation.
Population of interest
The target population for the recommendations is constituted of patients either diagnosed or clinically suspected of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Clinical suspicion is when, based on epidemiological data, clinical history, signs, and symptoms, in addition to complementary tests, COVID-19 is the most likely diagnostic hypothesis. Information on diagnosis can be found elsewhere.(25-27)
The disease severity was grouped into five categories, in line with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19 (Table 3).(28) For the categorization of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) the Berlin’s criteria were adopted as presented in table 4.
RESULTS
Eleven recommendations were issued. These recommendations are summarized in table 5. Detailed information on the evidence is shown in appendix 3, as GRADE evidence profiles, with complete references.
Aminoquinolines (hidroxychloroquine and chloroquine)
Recommendation 1 - we suggest against the routine use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 patients (weak recommendation; Level of Evidence: low).
Summary of the evidence: the systematic review identified three comparative clinical trials with available data on the effects of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in COVID-19 patients: two open randomized clinical trials(29,30) in a patient population with mild to moderate disease, and one cohort study.(31) No trials comparing chloroquine (CQ) to non-CQ therapy were found. The combined data from both clinical trials failed to show clinical-radiological improvement (relative risk - RR = 0.61; 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.26 - 1.43), or improved viral negativation rates within seven days (RR = 2.00; 95%CI 0.02 - 20.00),(29,31) however, one of the studies prepublication version has shown on the raw data analysis an increased improvement rate with HCQ (80.6% versus 54.8%; p = 0.0476).(30) Mortality and mechanical ventilation requirements, considered to be clinically relevant outcomes, were assessed in an observational study with 364 patients,(32) showing an increased mortality rate with HCQ (HCQ: 27.8%; HCQ + azithromycin: 22.1%; standard therapy: 11.4%), with a significant association remaining after the propensity score-adjusted analysis comparing HCQ to the standard therapy (hazard ratio - HR = 2.61; 95%CI 1.10 - 6.17).(32) After the review date, an additional cohort study was identified involving 1,376 moderate to severe COVID-19 hospitalized patients. In this study, no association was found with death or invasive mechanical ventilation requirement (HR = 1.04; CI95% 0.82 - 1.32).(33) This trial was considered in the evidence analysis and because it was a well-designed observational study, with adjustment for confounders and appropriate sample size, the degree of confidence for the lack of benefit was increased from very low, to low.
The association between HCQ and arrhythmias is well-known. An observational study has shown that seven out of 37 (19%) patients receiving HCQ monotherapy developed a QT interval ≥ 500ms.(34) Additionally, in a randomized clinical trial that compared patients using high-dose (1,200mg CQ for 10 days; total dose 12g) versus a lower dose (900mg on the first day, followed by 450mg daily for four days; total dose 2.7g), a 13.5% (95%CI 6.9 - 23.0%) overall mortality rate was found in association with the high-dose (in this trial both groups had a cointervention with ceftriaxone and azithromycin), suggesting a potential dose-response gradient.(35)
Comments: the recommendations panel interpreted that the available evidence suggests no clinically significant benefit of HCQ or CQ therapy. There was an agreement that the risk of cardiovascular adverse events is moderate, particularly regarding arrhythmias. So far, the existing comparative trials have only assessed hospitalized patients, therefore providing no basis for considerations on using or not these drugs in outpatients. The prescription of these products may be considered on a shared clinician-patient decision, only for severe or critically ill patients, hospitalized, under constant QTc interval monitoring, and avoiding concomitant QTc prolonging therapies. Its use should preferably be under clinical trial protocols.
Aminoquinolines (hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine) in association with azithromycin
Recommendation 2 - we suggest against the routine use the hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine plus azithromycin combination for treatment of COVID-19 patients (weak recommendation; Level of Evidence very low).
Summary of the evidence: no clinical trials were identified to assess azithromycin monotherapy. Azithromycin added to an HCQ regimen was assessed in one single trial, showing improved viral negativation in the group treated with the combination therapy (HQ + azithromycin 100%; n = 6/6 versus HQ 57%; n = 8/14; six-day negativation).(36) No randomized clinical trials were identified for the comparison of HCQ + azithromycin versus standard therapy. Viral negativation was assessed by four studies, three from the same research group, showing viral negativation above 90% after five to 10 days therapy;(36-38) in contrast, in one study treating ten patients with HCQ + azithromycin, negativation was found in only two patients (20%).(39) A total of six studies assessed mortality, with 35 deaths among 1,342 patients.(35,37-41)
Regarding adverse cardiovascular events, eight studies were identified. Five of them found a prolonged QT interval in some patients treated with HCQ/CQ plus azithromycin.(35,39,40,42,43) A retrospective analysis of 130 thousand rheumatoid arthritis patients showed an increased risk of cardiovascular death with HCQ + azithromycin as compared with HCA + amoxicillin (HR = 2.19; 95%CI 1.22 - 3.94; 30-day outcome). (44) The same analysis has also shown an increased risk of angina (HR = 1.15; 95%CI 1.05 - 1.26) and heart failure (HR = 1.22; 95%CI 1.02 - 1.45). In a non-comparative trial with 1,061 patients with HCQ + azithromycin, no patient has shown to have heart toxicity.(38)
Comments: the recommendations panel interpreted that the available evidence does not suggest a clinically significant benefit from the treatment with HCQ or CQ in combination with azithromycin. There was an understanding that there is an associated moderate increase of cardiovascular adverse events, especially arrhythmias, potentialized by the association of HCQ/CQ with azithromycin, and additional care related to these adverse events is required. So far, the existing comparative trials have only assessed hospitalized patients, providing no basis for discussions on using or not this combination in outpatients. Its use may be considered in a shared clinician-patient decision, only in severe or critically ill patients, hospitalized, with frequent QTc interval monitoring and avoiding QTc prolonging concomitant therapy. Its use should be preferentially under clinical trial protocols.
Oseltamivir
Recommendation 3 - we recommend against the use of oseltamivir for the treatment of COVID-19 in patients with no suspected influenza coinfection (strong recommendation; Level of Evidence very low).
Recommendation 4 - We suggest the use of empirical oseltamivir treatment in patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) or flu-like syndrome with risk factors for complications when a diagnosis of influenza cannot be ruled out (weak recommendation; Level of Evidence very low).
Summary of the evidence: no randomized clinical trial assessing the effectivity of oseltamivir in COVID-19 patients was identified. A cohort study with 504 COVID-19 hospitalized patients assessed the use of oseltamivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, and umifenovir.(45) The mortality rate in the oseltamivir group (n = 66) was 12.2% versus 16.2% in the non-oseltamivir group (odds ratio - OR = 0.71; 95%CI 0.28 - 1.59). Also, no difference was found regarding lung injury improvement as assessed by a chest CT scan (41.2% versus 43.3%). The study has important methodological issues, such as lacking randomization, sample representativity, and control for confounders.
Comments: the recommendations panel interpreted that there is no evidence to support the use of oseltamivir for SARS-CoV-2 therapy; besides, there is no theoretical rationale to support this use.
However, oseltamivir may be considered in cases of suspected influenza infection in patients with ARDS or flu-like syndrome with risk-factors for influenza complications (chronic diseases, immunosuppression, age ≥ 65 years, and pregnant women).(46) The usual dose for adults with appropriate renal function is 75mg twice daily for five days.(25,47) Suspected influenza should take into consideration the patient’s symptoms, radiological findings, as well as local epidemiology. A suspect may remain even in individuals with a history of immunization, once the vaccine’s effectiveness is rarely above 80%.(48,49) If testing for influenza is possible, oseltamivir may be stopped upon negative results, given the available test has appropriate sensitiveness for seasonal A, B, and H1N1 influenza. The decision on oseltamivir use was made based on indications for its use out of the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, with no appropriate information on the behavior of influenza in the scenery of a SARS-CoV-2 epidemics.(46) If well-developed local protocols are in place, we suggest them to be adhered to.
Lopinavir/ritonavir
Recommendation 5 - we suggest against the routine use lopinavir/ritonavir for treatment of COVID-19 (weak recommendation; Level of Evidence low).
Summary of the evidence - two randomized clinical trials assessed the use of lopinavir/ritonavir in COVID-19 patients.(50,51) One of them assessed 90 patients in the lopinavir/ritonavir group and 100 patients with standard therapy. Patients in the intervention group had lower but not statistically significant mortality rates (19.2% versus 25%; 28-day mortality rate), and no clinically significant improvement within 14 days (45.5% with the intervention versus 30% in the control group; p < 0.05); the time to clinical improvement was reduced in one day (median: 15 days versus 16 days; HR = 1.39; 95%CI 1.00 - 1.91; modified intention-to-treat analysis, excluding three early mortality patients).(50) Another randomized clinical trial included 21 patients in the lopinavir/ritonavir group and seven in the control group, with no statistically significant difference between the groups for outcomes such as fever, coughing relief rate, clinical condition deterioration rate, and CT scan improvement.(51) In both trials, there was no viral negativation difference between the groups. The adverse effects observed included anorexia, nausea, abdominal discomfort or diarrhea, acute gastritis, and reduced appetite; the lopinavir/ritonavir discontinuation rate was 13.8%.(5l)
Comments: the recommendations panel interpreted that the available evidence suggests no clinically significant benefit from the lopinavir/ritonavir therapy. This therapy could be considered promising, and the lack of observed benefits may result from the small number of assessed patients. Despite the high discontinuation rate due to adverse events and potential drug interactions, lopinavir/ritonavir is a relatively safe therapy for short term courses. This drug may be considered upon a clinician-patient shared decision, in hospitalized severe and critically ill patients, in centers with professionals experienced with this therapy. It should be preferably used under clinical trial protocols.
Corticosteroids
Recommendation 6 - we suggest against the routine use corticosteroids for COVID-19 patients’ treatment (weak recommendation; Level of Evidence very low).
Summary of the evidence: no clinical trials specifically assessing the use in COVID-19 patients were found. Four observational studies reported that the use of corticosteroids during hospitalization is associated with increased mortality; these studies combined hospitalized patients’ populations, however, with heterogeneous clinical features.(52-55) One trial, however, suggests that the use of methylprednisolone reduced the risk of death in patients with ARDS (HR = 0.38; 95%CI 0.20 - 0.72).(56) The outcomes for respiratory symptoms are variable in hospitalized patients.(57,58) The studies’ limitations include the lack of randomization and control groups, variable doses used, small samples, and retrospective analysis of the data.
Despite the systematic review conducted did not involve other coronaviruses infections, indirect information on SARS and Mid-East respiratory syndrome (MERS) show an absence of impact on mortality (RR = 1.07; 95%CI 0.81 - 1.42) and a prolonged time to viral negativation (3.78 days; 95%CI 1.16 - 6.41 days).(59)
Comments: the recommendations panel interpreted that there is no evidence supporting the routine use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 patients. Corticosteroids should be avoided during the first seven to 10 days after the symptoms start, when the viral response is more relevant, as there is evidence that corticosteroids may delay viral negativation.
Some evidence points out to a potential benefit for moderate to severe ARDS patients out of the viral infection context.(60) Its use may be considered for selected cases with moderate to severe ARDS, without suspected uncontrolled bacterial infection, 10 to 14 days after the COVID-19 symptoms start. The doses used in the studies ranged between 10mg and 20mg dexamethasone or 40mg to 120mg methylprednisolone daily, for five to 10 days. Their use should preferentially be under clinical research protocols.
Patients with other indications for corticosteroids use (e.g.: asthma and exacerbated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease - COPD) should use these drugs according to the clinical indication, assessing other potential risks and benefits during COVID-19 infection.
Tocilizumab (anti-interleukin-6)
Recommendation 7 - we suggest against the routine use tocilizumab for COVID-19 treatment (weak recommendation; Level of Evidence very low).
Summary of the evidence: no comparative trials evaluating tocilizumab effectiveness in COVID-19 patients were found; only two case series were identified. One of the series included 21 patients, all with chest CT changes, 20 on ventilatory support (45% with high-flow oxygen, 35% with a nasal cannula, 5% with an oxygen mask, 5% with non-invasive mechanic ventilation and 10% with invasive mechanical ventilation). Within five days, 75% of them had their ventilatory support requirements reduced; no deaths occurred during the follow-up period.(61) In another case series 15 patients were included, two moderately ill, six with severe disease, and seven in a very severe condition. Of the 15 patients, three died, two had increased severity, nine had clinical stabilization and one showed clinical improvement. Serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) was reduced in 10 patients after tocilizumab; increased IL-6 was found in the five patients with treatment failure, all of them with an initially very severe condition.(62)
Comments: the recommendation panel interpreted that no benefit and safety evidence was shown that would suggest the routine use of tocilizumab. Besides, this drug is costly, and especially during an epidemic, the use of resources should be rationalized, and the use of interventions with no benefit evidence avoided. This drug may be considered in a shared clinician-patient decision for severe and critically ill hospitalized patients, with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and significantly increased markers or inflammation (e.g.: IL-6, D-dimer, C reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase - LDH, and ferritin). The use of tocilizumab should be restricted to centers with professionals who are experienced in its use. Tocilizumab use should preferentially be under clinical trial protocols.
Heparins
Recommendation 8 - we recommend the routine use of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in COVID-19 hospitalized patients (strong recommendation; Level of Evidence very low).
Recommendation 9 - we suggest against the routine use therapeutic heparin doses for COVID-19 treatment (weak recommendation; Level of Evidence very low).
Summary of the evidence: two retrospective cohorts were identified.(63,64) One of them assessed 449 severe or critically ill hospitalized COVID-19 patients; 99 of them were given heparin for at least seven days (94 enoxaparin 40mg - 60mg daily and five unfractionated heparin 10,000 - 15,000IU/daily), and 350 control patients (without any anticoagulant or heparin, or less than seven days of use). In this study, the 28-day mortality rate was similar (heparin 30.3% versus controls 29.7%). In the subgroup with an International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis - Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy score (ISTH SIC) ≥ 4 (from one of the following features: platelets < 100,000, International Normalized Ratio - INR > 1.4 or a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment - SOFA - score ≥ 2), the mortality in the heparin group was lower (40% versus 64.2%; p = 0.029; n = 97). Increased effectiveness was also seen in patients with increased D-dimer, with a significantly reduced mortality in a group with D-dimer values above or equal to six-times the upper limit of the normal (32.8% versus 52.4%; p = 0.017).(64) In a study that assessed 42 patients, all of them with an immunosuppressor or corticosteroids, and severe to moderate COVID-19, 21 patients were given low molecular weight heparin (13 enoxaparin 40mg daily, two enoxaparin 20mg daily, four nadroparin 4,100IU daily and two low molecular weight sodium heparin 5,000IU daily, median: 11 days) and 21 controls, D-dimer and IL-6 levels were significantly reduced, and lymphocytes counts were increased, with no hospital length of stay differences.(65)
Comments: the recommendations panel interpreted that there is no indication for therapeutic dose heparins (e.g.: enoxaparin 1mg/kg subcutaneously - SC - every 12 hours) for the treatment of COVID-19. The rationale for other anticoagulants is analogous. Anticoagulation is associated with an increased risk of bleeding events and should be restricted to patients with a clear indication (e.g.: atrial fibrillation, pulmonary thromboembolism, deep venous thrombosis, among others), according to appropriate protocols.
COVID-19 patients apparently have an increased risk of thromboembolic events, and the assisting team should be aware of developing signs and symptoms. COVID-19 hospitalized patients should be given thromboembolism prophylaxis according to risk-stratification strategies, adhering to local hospital protocols. However, the use of prophylactic doses can be extended to all COVID-19 patients, as some SARS-CoV-2 patients appear to have a hypercoagulability state, with increased thromboembolic events rate as seen in observational clinical trials and post mortem examinations.(66,67) As an example, enoxaparin 40mg to 60mg SC once-daily doses, or unfractionated heparin 5,000IU SC twice or three times a day, could be used. Although there is limited evidence for pharmacological prophylaxis in COVID-19 patients, this is a low-cost and well-tolerated intervention that may potentially prevent major clinical events. Heparin should not be used for cases with contraindications (e.g.: increased risk of bleeding, active bleeding, and severe thrombocytopenia);(68) low molecular weight heparin should be used carefully in renal dysfunction patients.
ANTIBIOTICS
Recommendation 10 - we suggest against the use prophylactic antibiotics in patients with a suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis (weak recommendation; Level of Evidence very low).
Recommendation 11 - we recommend the use of antibiotics in COVID-19 patients with suspected bacterial infection (non-rated recommendation).
Summary of the evidence: no randomized clinical trials were found to assess the empirical antibiotics therapy effectiveness in COVID-19 patients without evidence of bacterial infections. Therefore, so far there is no clinical data enough to show benefits or risks of antibiotics in COVID-19 patients with no signs of bacterial infection. We did not access the evidence for bacterial infections therapy.
Comments: the panel interpreted that considering the lack of evidence, there is no base for prophylactic antibiotic therapy in COVID-19 patients. In addition to the lack of benefit evidence, this could result in adverse events, increased antimicrobial resistance, and costs.
There is no appropriate data on bacterial coinfection in COVID-19 patients, however, one should bear in mind that overlapping infections may occur. It is understood that those patients should be given antibiotics, similarly to COVID-19 patients, taking into consideration the local epidemiology and adhering to local protocols and guidelines from infection control services.
Table 6 shows a didactic summary of the recommendations according to the evaluated interventions, presenting their judgment regarding perceived benefits, risks, costs, availability, and evidence. Appendix 4 presents the most important drug interactions of potential COVID-19 therapies.
DISCUSSION
During epidemics, when consolidated effective therapies are not available, there is a trend to use therapies based on preclinical studies results, or based on observational studies with important limitations.(69) Experiences from other epidemics have shown that such interventions benefits may be far below the expected, as with oseltamivir during the influenza A (H1N1) epidemics in 2009.(60,70) During the Ebola virus epidemics in 2014, several interventions were tested, including CQ, HCQ, favipiravir, immunobiological agents, and convalescent plasma; none was proven effective.(71)
By the time when this guideline is publicized, we face a scenario where no specific COVID-19 proposed intervention is proven effective. Regarding safety, drugs such as HCQ (especially when combined with azithromycin) at the doses proposed for COVID-19 have been shown relevantly associated with cardiovascular events.(34,35,40,45) In the absence of effective therapies, treatment under clinical trial protocols should be encouraged. In this context, healthcare professionals should seek information on therapeutic clinical trials, especially randomized clinical trials, already approved by regulatory agencies and ethical committees possibly ongoing in their institutions.
Several other interventions are proposed, such as remdesivir, beta interferon, ivermectin, nitazoxandine, convalescent plasma, umifenovir, among others.(72-77) This guideline chose to prioritize those interventions raising more clinical practice concerns in Brazil by the time of its development. Of note, the current speed of COVID-19 knowledge generation renders these recommendations prone to become outdated in a short frame of time. As most of the interventions are based on evidence from small observational or interventional trials, we understand that as new well-designed clinical trials, with appropriate sample sizes, are published, there is a huge potential that herein presented recommendations shall be changed. Therefore, it is of paramount importance that readers of this guideline keep this in mind as one of the most important limitations of this document.
Also, it is necessary to understand that a clinical guideline aims to guide the clinical practice not necessarily applicable to every patient. The scarcity of evidence with appropriate methodology renders impossible to provide more categorical recommendations; we stress that a significant portion of the studies we evaluated was preliminary published in Ahead of Print bases, with no editorial board and peer review evaluations. Therefore, in this document we present suggested actions, to be contextualized according to features such as the patient’s clinical profile, existing comorbidities, and risk of developing adverse effects, in addition to the assisting team’s experience with the proposed interventions, patient’s preferences, service structure, as well as costs and available resources. Regarding costs, in the context of public health, it is important to emphasize that, in a scenario of an epidemic, resource allocation should be prioritized to interventions more likely to be beneficial, such as Personal Protective Equipment and interventions related to the patient’s ventilatory support. Therefore, under the light of the current COVID-19 knowledge, some investments in pharmacological therapies are debatable. However, the treatment of patients under clinical trial protocols, with appropriate study design and the potential to provide an answer to the society, should be encouraged.
With this document we hope to guide clinical practice in a national context, therefore reducing the therapeutic variability. In addition to the evidence available in the scientific literature, the recommendations took into consideration some Brazilian specific features, such as the availability of some drugs (either because of lack of regulatory clearance or due to difficult access), population and healthcare professionals acceptance, and costs associated with their use. Also, most of this document’s recommendations are in line with WHO therapeutic recommendations.(27) This document consists of a joint positioning by three medical societies, taking into consideration the need for the development of encompassing recommendations and contextualization of different medical specialties regarding of the frailty of the available evidence, that may be an applicable tool both for physicians working in the public health system and the supplementary system.
The developing group is committed to strive for periodically bring updates to this document, in a context of living guidelines,(78) where recommendations are updated as new evidence becomes available. Additional interventions will be included as they become relevant doubts for COVID-19 therapy.
-
Financial support: Not applicable. Institutional support was provided by the Health Technology Assessment Nuclei of the following hospitals coordinating the process for this guideline and systematic review: Associação Hospitalar Moinhos de Vento (Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil), Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz (São Paulo, SP, Brazil) and Hospital Sírio-Libanês (São Paulo, SP, Brazil).
Apêndice 1 - Potenciais conflitos de interesses dos participantes da diretriz
Data: 5 de maio de 2020
A lista abaixo é referente aos potenciais conflitos de interesses (CI) do grupo de painelistas e metodologistas relacionados a esta diretriz. A avaliação dos possíveis CI foi determinada por um processo de revisão pelo grupo coordenador do documento. A declaração de potenciais CI foi realizada por meio do formulário da Organização Mundial da Saúde (https://www.who.int/about/ethics/declarations-of-interest).
Participação nos painéis de recomendações
Apêndice 2 - Estratégias de busca das revisões sistemática
Pergunta 1 - Cloroquina e/ou hidroxicloroquina comparadas a tratamento convencional em paciente com infecção por COVID-19
Data da busca: 24 de abril de 2020
Pergunta 2 - Hidroxicloroquina/cloroquina associada à azitromicina comparada a não utilizar em paciente com infecção por COVID-19
Data da busca: 28 de abril de 2020
Pergunta 3 - Oseltamivir comparado a não utilizar em paciente com infecção por COVID-19
Data da busca: 27 de abril de 2020
Mesma estratégia de busca da pergunta 4.
Pergunta 4 - Lopinavir associado a ritonavir comparado a cuidados padrão em paciente com infecção por COVID-19
Data da busca: 27 de abril de 2020
Pergunta 5 - Corticoides comparados a não utilizar em paciente com infecção por COVID-19
Data da busca: 27 de abril de 2020
Pergunta 6 - Tocilizumabe comparado a não utilizar em paciente com infecção por COVID-19
Data da busca: 22 de abril de 2020
Pergunta 7 - Heparinas comparadas a não utilizar em paciente com infecção por COVID-19
Data da busca: 30 de abril de 2020
Pergunta 8 - Antibioticoterapia comparada a não utilizar em paciente com COVID-19 sem evidência de infecção bacteriana
Data da busca: 27 de abril de 2020
Apêndice 3 - Avaliação da certeza da evidência, de acordo com o sistema Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)
Pergunta 1 - Cloroquina e/ou hidroxicloroquina comparadas a tratamento convencional em paciente com infecção por COVID-19
Bibliografia: Chen et al., 2020(1); Chen et al., 2020(2); Tang et al., 2020(3); Gautret et al., 2020(4); Mercuro et al., 2020(5); Geleris et al., 2020(6)
†
‡
§
¶
||
#
**
††
‡‡
§§
Pergunta 2 - Hidroxicloroquina/cloroquina associada à azitromicina comparada a não utilizar em paciente com infecção por COVID-19
Bibliografia: Borba et al., 2020(7); Million et al., 2020(8); Lane et al., 2020(9); Gautret et al., 2020(10); Molina et al., 2020(11); Chorin et al., 2020(12); Columbia University Kidney Transplant Program, 2020(13); Gabriels et al., 2020(14); Ramireddy et al., 2020(15); Chang et al., 2020(16); Gautret et al., 2020(4)
†
‡
§
¶
Pergunta 3 - Oseltamivir comparado a não utilizar em paciente com infecção por COVID-19
Bibliografia: Liu et al., 2020(17)
Pergunta 4 - Lopinavir associado a ritonavir comparado a cuidados padrão em paciente com infecção por COVID-19
Bibliografia: Cao et al., 2020(18); Li et al., 2020(19); Deng et al., 2020(20); Ye et al., 2020(21); Zhu et al., 2020(22); Shi et al., 2020(23); Liu et al., 2020(17); Sun et al., 2020(24)
†
‡
§
¶
||
#
**
††
‡‡
§§
¶¶
||||
##
***
Pergunta 5 - Corticoides comparados a não utilizar em paciente com infecção por COVID-19
Contexto: Devemos utilizar corticoides no paciente com infecção por COVID-19?
Bibliografia: Zhou et al., 2020(25); Wu et al., 2020(26); Guan et al., 2020(27); Shang et al., 2020(28); Cao et al.,2020(29); Li et al., 2020(30); Xu et al.(31), 2020; Zha et al., 2020(32); Lu et al., 2020(33); Wang et al., 2020(34)
†
‡
§
Pergunta 6 - Tocilizumabe comparado a não utilizar em paciente com infecção por COVID-19
Bibliografia: Luo et al., 2020(35); Xu et al., 2020(36)
Pergunta 7 - Heparinas comparadas a não utilizar em paciente com infecção por COVID-19
Bibliografia: Shi et al., 2020(37); Tang et al., 2020(38)
†
‡
Pergunta 8 - Antibioticoterapia comparada a não utilizar em paciente com COVID-19 sem evidência de infecção bacteriana
Não foram encontrados estudos em paciente com COVID-19 sem evidência de infecção bacteriana
REFERÊNCIAS
1. Chen J, Liu D, Liu L, Liu P, Xu Q, Xia L, et al. [A pilot study of hydroxychloroquine in treatment of patients with moderate COVID-19. Zhejiang Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2020;49(2):215-9. Chinese.
2. Chen Z, Hu J, Zhang Z, Jiang S, Han S, Yan D, et al. Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19: results of a randomized clinical trial. medRxiv. 2020:2020.03.22.20040758.
3. Tang W, Cao Z, Han M, Wang Z, Chen J, Sun W, et al. Hydroxychloroquine in patients with mainly mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019: open-label, randomized, controlled trial. BMJ. 2020;369:m1849.
4. Gautret P, Lagier JC, Parola P, Hoang VT, Meddeb L, Mailhe M, et al. Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020 Mar 20:105949. Online ahead of print.
5. Mercuro NJ, Yen CF, Shim DJ, Maher TR, McCoy CM, Zimetbaum PJ, et al. Risk of QT interval prolongation associated with use of hydroxychloroquine with or without concomitant azithromycin among hospitalized patients testing positive for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). JAMA Cardiol. 2020 may 1. Online ahead of print.
6. Geleris J, Sun Y, Platt J, et al. Observational study of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020 May 7. Online ahead of print.
7. Borba MG, Val FF, Sampaio VS, Alexandre MA, Melo GC, Brito M, Mourão MP, Brito-Sousa JD, Baía-da-Silva D, Guerra MV, Hajjar LA, Pinto RC, Balieiro AA, Pacheco AG, Santos JD Jr, Naveca FG, Xavier MS, Siqueira AM, Schwarzbold A, Croda J, Nogueira ML, Romero GA, Bassat Q, Fontes CJ, Albuquerque BC, Daniel-Ribeiro CT, Monteiro WM, Lacerda MV; CloroCovid-19 Team. Effect of high vs low doses of chloroquine diphosphate as adjunctive therapy for patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(4):e208857.
8. Million M, Lagier JC, Gautret P, Fournier PE, Amrane S, Hocquart M, et al. Early treatment of COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: a retrospective analysis of 1061 cases in Marseille, France. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020 May 5:101738. Online ahead of print.
9. Lane JC, Weaver J, Kostka K, Duarte-Salles T, Abrahao MT, Alghoul H, et al. Safety of hydroxychloroquine, alone and in combination with azithromycin, in light of rapid wide-spread use for COVID-19: a multinational, network cohort and self-controlled case series study. medRxiv. 2020:2020.04.08.20054551.
10. Gautret P, Lagier JC, Parola P, Hoang VT, Meddeb L, Sevestre J, et al. Clinical and microbiological effect of a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in 80 COVID-19 patients with at least a six-day follow up: a pilot observational study. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020;34:101663.
11. Molina JM, Delaugerre C, Le Goff J, Mela-Lima B, Ponscarme D, Goldwirt L, et al. No evidence of rapid antiviral clearance or clinical benefit with the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in patients with severe COVID-19 infection. Med Mal Infect. 2020;50(4):384.
12. Chorin E, Dai M, Shulman E, Wadhwani L, Cohen RB, Barbhaiya C, et al. The QT interval in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection treated with hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin. medRxiv. 2020:2020.04.02.20047050.
13. Columbia University Kidney Transplant Program. Early description of coronavirus 2019 disease in kidney transplant recipients in New York. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2020 Apr 21;ASN.2020030375. Online ahead of print.
14. Gabriels J, Saleh M, Chang D, Epstein LM. Inpatient use of mobile continuous telemetry for COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. HeartRhythm Case Rep. 2020 Apr 1. Online ahead of print.
15. Ramireddy A, Chugh HS, Reinier K, Ebinger J, Park E, Thompson M, et al. Experience with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in the COVID-19 pandemic: implications for QT interval monitoring. MedRxiv. 2020: 2020.04.22.20075671.
16. Chang D, Saleh M, Gabriels J, Ismail H, Goldner B, Willner J, et al. Inpatient use of ambulatory telemetry monitors for COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and/or azithromycin. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 18:S0735-1097(20)35009-9. Online ahead of print.
17. Liu Q, Fang X, Tian L, Chen X, Chung U, Wang K, et al. The effect of arbidol hydrochloride on reducing mortality of Covid-19 patients: a retrospective study of real world date from three hospitals in Wuhan. medRxiv. 2020: 2020.04.11.20056523.
18. Cao B, Wang Y, Wen D, Liu W, Wang J, Fan G, et al. A trial of lopinavir-ritonavir in adults hospitalized with severe Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(19):1787-99.
19. Li Y, Xie Z, Lin W, Cai W, Wen C, Guan Y, et al. An exploratory randomized, controlled study on the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir or arbidol treating adult patients hospitalized with mild/moderate COVID-19 (ELACOI). medRxiv. 2020:2020.03.19.20038984.
20. Deng L, Li C, Zeng Q, Liu X, Li X, Zhang H, et al. Arbidol combined with LPV/r versus LPV/r alone against corona virus disease 2019: a retrospective cohort study. J Infect. 2020 Mar 11;S0163-4453(20)30113-4. Online ahead of print.
21. Ye XT, Luo YL, Xia SC, Sun QF, Ding JG, Zhou Y, et al. Clinical efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of Coronavirus disease 2019. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2020;24(6):3390-6.
22. Zhu Z, Lu Z, Xu T, Chen C, Yang G, Zha T, et al. Arbidol monotherapy is superior to lopinavir/ritonavir in treating COVID-19. J Infect. 2020 Apr 10;S0163-4453(20)30188-2. Online ahead of print.
23. Shi X, Lu Y, Li R, Tang Y, Shi N, Song F, et al. Evaluation of antiviral therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia in Shanghai, China. J Med Virol. 2020 Apr 16. Online ahead of print.
24. Sun J, Deng X, Chen X, Huang J, Huang S, Li Y, et al. Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in COVID-19 Patients in China: An Active Monitoring Study by Hospital Pharmacovigilance System. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020 Apr 23. Online ahead of print.
25. Zhou W, Liu Y, Tian D, Wang C, Wang S, Cheng J, et al. Potential benefits of precise corticosteroids therapy for severe 2019-nCoV pneumonia. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2020;5(1):188.
26. Wu C, Chen X, Cai Y, Xia J, Zhou X, Xu S, et al. Risk factors associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome and death in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Mar 13:e200994. Online ahead of print.
27. Guan WJ, Ni ZY, Hu Y, Liang WH, Ou CQ, et al. Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in China. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(18):1708-20.
28. Shang J, Du R, Lu Q, Wu J, Xu S, Ke Z, et al. The treatment and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 in Hubei, China: a multi-centered, retrospective, observational study. (2/26/2020). Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3546060
29. Cao J, Tu WJ, Cheng W, et al. Clinical features and short-term outcomes of 102 patients with corona virus disease 2019 in Wuhan, China. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Apr 2;ciaa243. Online ahead of print.
30. Li X, Xu S, Yu M, Wang K, Tao Y, Zhou Y, et al. Risk factors for severity and mortality in adult COVID-19 inpatients in Wuhan. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Apr 12:S0091-6749(20)30495-4. Online ahead of print.
31. Xu K, Chen Y, Yuan J, Yi P, Ding C, Wu W, et al. Factors associated with prolonged viral RNA shedding in patients with COVID-19. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Apr 9:ciaa351. Online ahead of print.
32. Zha L, Li S, Pan L, Tefsen B, Li Y, French N, et al. Corticosteroid treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Med J Aust. 2020;212(9):416-20.
33. Lu X, Chen T, Wang Y, Wang J, Yan F. et al. Adjuvant corticosteroid therapy for critically ill patients with COVID-19. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):241.
34. Wang D, Wang J, Jiang Q, Yang J, Li J, Gao C, et al. No clear benefit to the use of corticosteroid as treatment in adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019 : a retrospective cohort study. medRxiv. 2020:2020.04.21.20066258.
35. Luo P, Liu Y, Qiu L, Liu X, Liu D, Li J. Tocilizumab treatment in COVID-19: A single center experience. J Med Virol. 2020; Apr 6. Online ahead of print.
36. Xu X, Han M, Li T, Sun W, Wang D, Fu B, et al. Effective treatment of severe COVID-19 patients with tocilizumab. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117(20):10970-5.
37. Shi C, Wang C, Wang H, Yang C, Cai F, Zeng F, et al. The potential of low molecular weight heparin to mitigate cytokine storm in severe COVID-19 patients: a retrospective clinical study. medRxiv. 2020:2020.03.28.20046144.
38. Tang N, Bai H, Chen X, Gong J, Li D, Sun Z. Anticoagulant treatment is associated with decreased mortality in severe coronavirus disease 2019 patients with coagulopathy. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;18(5):1094-9.
References
- 1 Chen N, Zhou M, Dong X, Qu J, Gong F, Han Y, et al. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study. Lancet. 2020;395(10223):507-13.
- 2 Zhu N, Zhang D, Wang W, Li X, Yang B, Song J, Zhao X, Huang B, Shi W, Lu R, Niu P, Zhan F, Ma X, Wang D, Xu W, Wu G, Gao GF, Tan W, China Novel Coronavirus Investigating and Research Team. A novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(8):727-33.
- 3 Grasselli G, Zangrillo A, Zanella A, Antonelli M, Cabrini L, Castelli A, et al. Baseline characteristics and outcomes of 1591 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 admitted to ICUs of the Lombardy Region, Italy. JAMA. 2020;323(16):1574-81.
- 4 Richardson S, Hirsch JS, Narasimhan M, Crawford JM, McGinn T, Davidson KW, et al. Presenting characteristics, comorbidities, and outcomes among 5700 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the New York City Area. JAMA. 2020;e206775. Online ahead of print.
-
5 Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Covid 19. Painel de casos de doença pelo coronavírus 2019 (COVID-19) no Brasil pelo Ministério da Saúde [internet]. Disponível em: https://covid.saude.gov.br
» https://covid.saude.gov.br - 6 Kalil AC. Treating COVID-19-off-label drug use, compassionate use, and randomized clinical trials during pandemics. JAMA. 2020 Mar 24. Online ahead of print.
- 7 Rennard SI, Kalil AC, Casaburi R. Chicken soup in the time of COVID. Chest. 2020 May 6;S0012-3692(20)30870-9. Online ahead of print.
- 8 Zagury-Orly I, Schwartzstein RM. Covid-19 - a reminder to reason. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 28. Online ahead of print.
- 9 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ; GRADE Working Group. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924-6.
- 10 Morgan RL, Florez I, Falavigna M, Kowalski S, Akl EA, Thayer KA, et al. Development of rapid guidelines: 3. GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist extension for rapid recommendations. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):63.
- 11 Schünemann HJ, Moja L. Reviews: Rapid! Rapid! Rapid! ...and systematic. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):4.
-
12 Tricco AC, Langlois EV, Straus SE; Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research & World Health Organization. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide [Internet]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/258698
» https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/258698 - 13 Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.
-
14 Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6.0, 2019. (updated July 2019). Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
» https://training.cochrane.org/handbook - 15 Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savovic J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.
-
16 Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses[internet]. Available from: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp
» http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp -
17 The Joanna Briggs Institute. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools for use in JBI Systematic Reviews. Checklist for Case Series. Avalilable from: https://joannabriggs.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/JBI_Critical_Appraisal-Checklist_for_Case_Series2017_0.pdf
» https://joannabriggs.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/JBI_Critical_Appraisal-Checklist_for_Case_Series2017_0.pdf -
18 Moola S, Munn Z, Tufanaru C, Aromataris E, Sears K, Sfetcu R, et al. Chapter 7: Systematic reviews of etiology and risk. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute. 2017. p. 269. Available from: https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/
» https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/ -
19 Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group. Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the GRADE approach. Updated October 2013. Available from: https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html
» https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html -
20 Colpani V, Stein C, Pagano CG, Gräf DD, Matuoka JY, Medeiros FC, et al. Corticoides para infecção por SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19). Revisão sistemática rápida. [citado 2020 Mai 15]. Disponível em: https://oxfordbrazilebm.com/index.php/2020/05/18/corticoides-para-infeccao-por-sars-cov-2-covid-19-revisao-sistematica-rapida/
» https://oxfordbrazilebm.com/index.php/2020/05/18/corticoides-para-infeccao-por-sars-cov-2-covid-19-revisao-sistematica-rapida/ -
21 Pacheco RL, Pachito DV, Bagattini AM, Riera R. Hidroxicloroquina e cloroquina para COVID-19. Revisa~o sistema´tica ra´pida. [citado 2020 Mai 18]. Disponível em: https://oxfordbrazilebm.com/index.php/2020/04/25/rapid-review-hidroxicloroquina-covid19/
» https://oxfordbrazilebm.com/index.php/2020/04/25/rapid-review-hidroxicloroquina-covid19/ -
22 Riera R, Bagattini AM, Pachito DV, Medeiros FC, Brito GV, Matuoka JY, et al. Heparinas para infecção por SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). Revisão sistemática rápida. [citado 2020 Mai 18]. Disponível em: https://oxfordbrazilebm.com/index.php/2020/05/02/heparinas-para-infeccao-por-sars-cov-2-covid-19-revisao-sistematica-rapida2/
» https://oxfordbrazilebm.com/index.php/2020/05/02/heparinas-para-infeccao-por-sars-cov-2-covid-19-revisao-sistematica-rapida2/ -
23 Stein C, Falavigna M, Pagano CG, Gräf DD, Matuoka JY, Oliveira Jr HA, et al. Associação hidroxicloroquina/cloroquina e azitromicina para Covid-19. Revisão sistemática rápida. [citado 2020 Mai 18]. Disponível em: https://oxfordbrazilebm.com/index.php/2020/05/18/associacao-hidroxicloroquina-cloroquina-e-azitromicina-para-covid-19-revisao-sistematica-rapida/
» https://oxfordbrazilebm.com/index.php/2020/05/18/associacao-hidroxicloroquina-cloroquina-e-azitromicina-para-covid-19-revisao-sistematica-rapida/ -
24 Stein C, Falavigna M, Pagano CG, Gräf DD, Matuoka JY, Oliveira Jr HA, et al. Antibioticoterapia para Covid-19 sem evidência de infecção bacteriana. Revisão sistemática rápida. [citado 2020 Mai 18]. Disponível em: https://oxfordbrazilebm.com/index.php/2020/05/13/antibioticoterapia-para-covid-19-sem-evidencia-de-infeccao-bacteriana-revisao-sistematica-rapida/
» https://oxfordbrazilebm.com/index.php/2020/05/13/antibioticoterapia-para-covid-19-sem-evidencia-de-infeccao-bacteriana-revisao-sistematica-rapida/ -
25 Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines (IDSA). Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19. [cited 2020 May 18]. Available from: https://www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/covid-19-guideline-diagnostics/
» https://www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/covid-19-guideline-diagnostics/ -
26 Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. In: Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovação e Insumos Estratégicos em Saúde. Departamento de Gestão e Incorporação de Tecnologias e Inovações em Saúde. Coordenação-Geral de Gestão de Tecnologias em Saúde. Coordenação de Gestão de Protocolos Clínicos e Diretrizes Terapêuticas. Diretrizes para Diagnóstico e Tratamento da COVID-19. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde; 2020. [citado 2020 Mai 14]. Disponível em: https://coronavirus.ceara.gov.br/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/diretrizes-para-diagnostico-e-tratamento-da-covid_19.pdf
» https://coronavirus.ceara.gov.br/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/diretrizes-para-diagnostico-e-tratamento-da-covid_19.pdf - 27 World Health Organization. Clinical care for severe acute respiratory infection: toolkit. COVID-19 adaptation. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020.
-
28 National Institutes of Health. Treatment Guidelines Panel. Coronavirus Diseases 2019 (COVID-19). COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines. [cited 2020 May 18]. Available from: https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/
» https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/ - 29 Chen J, Liu D, Liu L, Liu P, Xu Q, Xia L, et al. [A pilot study of hydroxychloroquine in treatment of patients with moderate COVID-19. Zhejiang Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2020;49(2):215-9. Chinese.
- 30 Tang W, Cao Z, Han M, Wang Z, Chen J, Sun W, et al. Hydroxychloroquine in patients with mainly mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019: open-label, randomized, controlled trial. BMJ. 2020;369:m1849.
- 31 Chen Z, Hu J, Zhang Z, Jiang S, Han S, Yan D, et al. Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19: results of a randomized clinical trial. medRxiv. 2020:2020.03.22.20040758.
- 32 Magagnoli J, Narendran S, Pereira F, Cummings T, Hardin JW, Sutton SS, et al. Outcomes of hydroxychloroquine usage in United States veterans hospitalized with Covid-19. medRxiv. 2020:2020.04.16.20065920.
- 33 Geleris J, Sun Y, Platt J, et al. Observational study of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020 May 7. Online ahead of print.
- 34 Mercuro NJ, Yen CF, Shim DJ, Maher TR, McCoy CM, Zimetbaum PJ, et al. Risk of QT interval prolongation associated with use of hydroxychloroquine with or without concomitant azithromycin among hospitalized patients testing positive for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). JAMA Cardiol. 2020 may 1. Online ahead of print.
- 35 Borba MG, Val FF, Sampaio VS, Alexandre MA, Melo GC, Brito M, Mourão MP, Brito-Sousa JD, Baía-da-Silva D, Guerra MV, Hajjar LA, Pinto RC, Balieiro AA, Pacheco AG, Santos JD Jr, Naveca FG, Xavier MS, Siqueira AM, Schwarzbold A, Croda J, Nogueira ML, Romero GA, Bassat Q, Fontes CJ, Albuquerque BC, Daniel-Ribeiro CT, Monteiro WM, Lacerda MV; CloroCovid-19 Team. Effect of high vs low doses of chloroquine diphosphate as adjunctive therapy for patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(4):e208857.
- 36 Gautret P, Lagier JC, Parola P, Hoang VT, Meddeb L, Mailhe M, et al. Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020 Mar 20:105949. Online ahead of print.
- 37 Gautret P, Lagier JC, Parola P, Hoang VT, Meddeb L, Sevestre J, et al. Clinical and microbiological effect of a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in 80 COVID-19 patients with at least a six-day follow up: a pilot observational study. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020;34:101663.
- 38 Million M, Lagier JC, Gautret P, Fournier PE, Amrane S, Hocquart M, et al. Early treatment of COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: a retrospective analysis of 1061 cases in Marseille, France. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020 May 5:101738. Online ahead of print.
- 39 Molina JM, Delaugerre C, Le Goff J, Mela-Lima B, Ponscarme D, Goldwirt L, et al. No evidence of rapid antiviral clearance or clinical benefit with the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in patients with severe COVID-19 infection. Med Mal Infect. 2020;50(4):384.
- 40 Chorin E, Dai M, Shulman E, Wadhwani L, Cohen RB, Barbhaiya C, et al. The QT interval in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection treated with hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin. medRxiv. 2020:2020.04.02.20047050.
- 41 Columbia University Kidney Transplant Program. Early description of coronavirus 2019 disease in kidney transplant recipients in New York. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2020 Apr 21;ASN.2020030375. Online ahead of print.
- 42 Chang D, Saleh M, Gabriels J, Ismail H, Goldner B, Willner J, et al. Inpatient use of ambulatory telemetry monitors for COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and/or azithromycin. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 18:S0735-1097(20)35009-9. Online ahead of print.
- 43 Ramireddy A, Chugh HS, Reinier K, Ebinger J, Park E, Thompson M, et al. Experience with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in the COVID-19 pandemic: implications for QT interval monitoring. MedRxiv. 2020: 2020.04.22.20075671.
- 44 Lane JC, Weaver J, Kostka K, Duarte-Salles T, Abrahao MT, Alghoul H, et al. Safety of hydroxychloroquine, alone and in combination with azithromycin, in light of rapid wide-spread use for COVID-19: a multinational, network cohort and self-controlled case series study. medRxiv. 2020:2020.04.08.20054551.
- 45 Liu Q, Fang X, Tian L, Chen X, Chung U, Wang K, et al. The effect of arbidol hydrochloride on reducing mortality of Covid-19 patients: a retrospective study of real world date from three hospitals in Wuhan. medRxiv. 2020: 2020.04.11.20056523.
- 46 Uyeki TM, Bernstein HH, Bradley JS, Englund JA, File TM, Fry AM, et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America: 2018 Update on Diagnosis, Treatment, Chemoprophylaxis, and Institutional Outbreak Management of Seasonal Influenzaa. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;68(6):e1-e47.
- 47 Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Departamento de Vigilância das Doenças Transmissíveis. Protocolo de tratamento de Influenza 2017. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde; 2018.
- 48 Dawood FS, Chung JR, Kim SS, Zimmerman RK, Nowalk MP, Jackson ML, et al. Interim Estimates of 2019-20 Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness - United States, February 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69(7):177-82.
- 49 Lewnard JA, Cobey S. Immune history and influenza vaccine effectiveness. Vaccines (Basel). 2018;6(2):28.
- 50 Cao B, Wang Y, Wen D, Liu W, Wang J, Fan G, et al. A trial of lopinavir-ritonavir in adults hospitalized with severe Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(19):1787-99.
- 51 Li Y, Xie Z, Lin W, Cai W, Wen C, Guan Y, et al. An exploratory randomized, controlled study on the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir or arbidol treating adult patients hospitalized with mild/moderate COVID-19 (ELACOI). medRxiv. 2020:2020.03.19.20038984.
- 52 Li X, Xu S, Yu M, Wang K, Tao Y, Zhou Y, et al. Risk factors for severity and mortality in adult COVID-19 inpatients in Wuhan. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Apr 12:S0091-6749(20)30495-4. Online ahead of print.
- 53 Lu X, Chen T, Wang Y, Wang J, Yan F. et al. Adjuvant corticosteroid therapy for critically ill patients with COVID-19. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):241.
-
54 Shang J, Du R, Lu Q, Wu J, Xu S, Ke Z, et al. The treatment and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 in Hubei, China: a multi-centered, retrospective, observational study. (2/26/2020). Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3546060
» https://ssrn.com/abstract=354606 - 55 Wang D, Wang J, Jiang Q, Yang J, Li J, Gao C, et al. No clear benefit to the use of corticosteroid as treatment in adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019 : a retrospective cohort study. medRxiv. 2020:2020.04.21.20066258.
- 56 Wu C, Chen X, Cai Y, Xia J, Zhou X, Xu S, et al. Risk factors associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome and death in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Mar 13:e200994. Online ahead of print.
- 57 Guan WJ, Ni ZY, Hu Y, Liang WH, Ou CQ, et al. Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in China. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(18):1708-20.
- 58 Zhou W, Liu Y, Tian D, Wang C, Wang S, Cheng J, et al. Potential benefits of precise corticosteroids therapy for severe 2019-nCoV pneumonia. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2020;5(1):18.
- 59 Li H, Chen C, Hu F, et al. Impact of corticosteroid therapy on outcomes of persons with SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, or MERS-CoV infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Leukemia. 2020 May 5:1-9. Online ahead of print.
- 60 Villar J, Ferrando C, Martinez D, Ambrós A, Muñoz T, Soler JA, Aguilar G, Alba F, González-Higueras E, Conesa LA, Martín-Rodríguez C, Díaz-Domínguez FJ, Serna-Grande P, Rivas R, Ferreres J, Belda J, Capilla L, Tallet A, Añón JM, Fernández RL, González-Martín JM; dexamethasone in ARDS network. Dexamethasone treatment for the acute respiratory distress syndrome: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8(3):267-76.
- 61 Xu X, Han M, Li T, Sun W, Wang D, Fu B, et al. Effective treatment of severe COVID-19 patients with tocilizumab. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117(20):10970-5.
- 62 Luo P, Liu Y, Qiu L, Liu X, Liu D, Li J. Tocilizumab treatment in COVID-19: A single center experience. J Med Virol. 2020; Apr 6. Online ahead of print.
- 63 Shi X, Lu Y, Li R, Tang Y, Shi N, Song F, et al. Evaluation of antiviral therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia in Shanghai, China. J Med Virol. 2020 Apr 16. Online ahead of print.
- 64 Tang N, Bai H, Chen X, Gong J, Li D, Sun Z. Anticoagulant treatment is associated with decreased mortality in severe coronavirus disease 2019 patients with coagulopathy. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;18(5):1094-9.
- 65 Shi C, Wang C, Wang H, Yang C, Cai F, Zeng F, et al. The potential of low molecular weight heparin to mitigate cytokine storm in severe COVID-19 patients: a retrospective clinical study. medRxiv. 2020:2020.03.28.20046144.
- 66 Carsana L, Sonzogni A, Nasr A, Rossi R, Pellegrinelli A, Zeerbi P, et al. Pulmonary post-mortem findings in a large series of COVID-19 cases from Northern Italy. medRxiv. 2020:2020.04.19.20054262.
- 67 Klok FA, Kruip MJ, van der Meer NJ, Arbous MS, Gommers DA, Kant KM, et al. Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. Thromb Res. 2020 Apr 10:S0049-3848(20)30120-1. Online ahead of print.
- 68 Anderson DR, Morgano GP, Bennett C, Dentali F, Francis CW, Garcia DA, et al. American Society of Hematology 2019 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical hospitalized patients. Blood Adv. 2019;3(23):3898-944.
-
69 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Treatment and Management of Patients with COVID-19. 2020. [cited 2020 May 18]. Available from: https://www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/covid-19-guideline-treatment-and-management/
» https://www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/covid-19-guideline-treatment-and-management/ - 70 Dobson J, Whitley RJ, Pocock S, Monto AS. Oseltamivir treatment for influenza in adults: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2015;385(9979):1729-37.
- 71 Kalil AC. Treating COVID-19-off-label drug use, compassionate use, and randomized clinical trials during pandemics. JAMA. 2020 Mar 24. Online ahead of print.
- 72 Zhu Z, Lu Z, Xu T, Chen C, Yang G, Zha T, et al. Arbidol monotherapy is superior to lopinavir/ritonavir in treating COVID-19. J Infect. 2020 Apr 10;S0163-4453(20)30188-2. Online ahead of print.
- 73 Duan K, Liu B, Li C, Zhang H, Yu T, Qu J, et al. Effectiveness of convalescent plasma therapy in severe COVID-19 patients. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117(17):9490-6.
- 74 Kelleni MT. Nitazoxanide/azithromycin combination for COVID-19: a suggested new protocol for COVID-19 early management. Pharmacol Res. 2020 Apr 30;157:104874. Online ahead of print.
- 75 Wang Y, Zhang D, Du G, Du R, Zhao J, Jin Y, et al. Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2020;395(10236):1569-78.
- 76 Hung IF, Lung KC, Tso E, Liu R, Chung TW, Chu MY, et al. Triple combination of interferon beta-1b, lopinavir-ritonavir, and ribavirin in the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19: an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2020 May 8;S0140-6736(20)31042-4. Online ahead of print.
-
77 Patel A. Usefulness of ivermectin in COVID-19 illness. [cited 2020 Apr 19]. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3580524
» https://ssrn.com/abstract=3580524 - 78 Akl EA, Meerpohl JJ, Elliott J, Kahale LA, Schünemann HJ; Living Systematic Review Network. Living systematic reviews: 4. Living guideline recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;91:47-53.
-
79 Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia. Diretrizes Brasileiras de Ventilação Mecânica 2013. São Paulo: AMIB; 2013. [citado 2020 Abr 19]. Disponível em https://www.amib.org.br/fileadmin/user_upload/amib/2018/junho/15/Diretrizes_Brasileiras_de_Ventilacao_Mecanica_2013_AMIB_SBPT_Arquivo_Eletronico_Oficial.pdf
» https://www.amib.org.br/fileadmin/user_upload/amib/2018/junho/15/Diretrizes_Brasileiras_de_Ventilacao_Mecanica_2013_AMIB_SBPT_Arquivo_Eletronico_Oficial.pdf
Edited by
-
Responsible editor: Thiago Costa Lisboa
Publication Dates
-
Publication in this collection
13 July 2020 -
Date of issue
Apr-Jun 2020
History
-
Received
15 May 2020 -
Accepted
18 May 2020