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.
IntroductionThe use of insulin analogs for the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is widespread; however, the therapeutic benefits still require further evaluation given their higher costs. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of analog insulin glargine compared to recombinant DNA (rDNA) insulin in patients with T1DM in observational studies, building on previous reviews of randomized controlled trials comparing neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin and insulin glargine.MethodsA systematic review with a meta-analysis was performed. The review included cohort studies and registries available on PubMed, LILACS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), as well as manual and gray literature searches. The meta-analysis was conducted in Review Manager 5.3 software. The primary outcomes were glycated hemoglobin (Hb1Ac), weight gain, and hypoglycemia. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.ResultsOut of 796 publications, 11 studies were finally included. The meta-analysis favored insulin glargine in HbA1c outcomes (adult patients) and hypoglycemic episodes (P < 0.05), but without reaching glycemic control (Hb1Ac to approximately 7%). The methodological quality of the studies was moderate, noting that 45% of studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies.ConclusionGiven the high heterogeneity of the studies, the discrete value presented by the estimated effect on effectiveness and safety, potential conflicts of interest of the studies, and the appreciable higher cost of insulin glargine, there is still no support for recommending first-line therapy with analogs. The role of analogs in the treatment of T1DM could be better determined by further observational studies of good methodological quality to assess their long-term effectiveness and safety, as well as their cost-effectiveness.
Systematic review and meta-analysis. The data were collected using CINAHL; CENTRAL; MEDLINE/PubMed; and LILACS databases; grey literature; and manual search. The methodological quality was assessed using the modified Jadad scale; Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized clinical trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. The search was completed in November, 2015. 26 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Ondansetron exhibited similar efficacy than granisetron and tropisetron, as well as greater efficacy than dolasetron for acute vomiting. Palonosetron exhibited greater efficacy than ondansetron for delayed nausea and acute and delayed vomiting. The comparison of granisetron with ondansetron in the cohort studies showed no difference. Expert commentary: In this review, palonosetron had increased efficiency compared with ondansetron, except in the subgroup analysis and acute nausea. Few cohort studies have been published addressing this topic.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.