Background Efficacy and safety of treatments for hospitalized COVID-19 are uncertain. We systematically reviewed efficacy and safety of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19. Methods Studies evaluating remdesivir in adults with hospitalized COVID-19 were searched in several engines until August 21, 2020. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, clinical improvement or recovery, need for invasive ventilation, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Inverse variance random effects meta-analyses were performed. Results We included four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 2296) [two vs. placebo (n = 1299) and two comparing 5-day vs. 10-day regimens (n = 997)], and two case series (n = 88). Studies used intravenous remdesivir 200mg the first day and 100mg for four or nine more days. One RCT (n = 236) was stopped early due to AEs; the other three RCTs reported outcomes between 11 and 15 days. Time to recovery was decreased by 4 days with remdesivir vs. placebo in one RCT (n = 1063), and by 0.8 days with 5-days vs. 10-days of therapy in another RCT (n = 397). Clinical improvement was better for 5-days regimen vs. standard of care in one RCT (n = 600). Remdesivir did not decrease all-cause mortality (RR 0.71, 95%CI 0.39 to 1.28, I2 = 43%) and need for invasive ventilation (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.23 to 1.42, I2 = 60%) vs. placebo at 14 days but had fewer SAEs; 5-day decreased need for invasive ventilation and SAEs vs. 10-day in one RCT (n = 397). No differences in all-cause mortality or SAEs were seen among 5-day, 10-day and standard of care. There were some concerns of bias to high risk of bias in RCTs. Heterogeneity between studies could be due to different severities of disease, days of therapy before outcome determination, and how ordinal data was analyzed. Conclusions There is paucity of adequately powered and fully reported RCTs evaluating effects of remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Until stronger evidence emerges, we cannot conclude that remdesivir is efficacious for treating COVID-19.

IntroductionThe selection of a medical specialty has been associated with multiple factors, such as personal preferences, academic exposure, motivational factors and sociodemographic factors, such as gender. The number of women in the medical field has increased in recent years. In Latin America, we have not found any studies that explore this relationship.ObjectiveTo determine whether there is an association between gender and the intention to choose a medical specialty in medical students from 11 countries in Latin America.MethodsSecondary analysis of the Collaborative Working Group for the Research of Human Resources for Health (Red-LIRHUS) data; a multi-country project of students in their first year and fifth year of study, from 63 medical schools in 11 Latin American countries. All students who referred intention to choose a certain medical specialty were considered as participants.ResultsOf the 11073 surveyed students, 9235 indicated the name of a specific specialty. The specialties chosen most often in the fifth year were General Surgery (13.0%), Pediatrics (11.0%), Internal Medicine (10.3%) and Obstetrics/Gynecology (9.0%). For women, the top choices were Pediatrics (15.8%), Obstetrics/Gynecology (11.0%), Cardiology (8.7%), General Surgery (8.6%), and Oncology (6.4%). In the adjusted analysis, the female gender was associated with the choice of Obstetrics/Gynecology (RP: 2.75; IC95%: 2.24–3.39); Pediatric Surgery (RP: 2.19; IC95%: 1.19–4.00), Dermatology (RP: 1.91; IC95%:1.24–2.93), Pediatrics (RP: 1.83; IC95%: 1.56–2.17), and Oncology (RP: 1.37; IC95%: 1.10–1.71).ConclusionsThere is an association between the female gender and the intention to choose Obstetrics/Gynecology, Pediatrics, Pediatric Surgery, Dermatology, and Oncology. We recommend conducting studies that consider other factors that can influence the choice of a medical specialty.

Background: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19. Methods: Systematic review in five engines, pre-print webpages and RCT registries until May 22, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies evaluating remdesivir on confirmed, COVID-19 adults with pneumonia and/or respiratory insufficiency. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinical improvement or recovery, need for invasive ventilation, and serious adverse events (SAE). Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, progression of pneumonia, and adverse events (AE). Inverse variance random effects meta-analyses were performed. Results: Two placebo-controlled RCTs (n=1300) and two case series (n=88) were included. All studies used remdesivir 200mg IV the first day and 100mg IV for 9 more days, and followed up until 28 days. Wang et al. RCT was stopped early due to AEs; ACTT-1 was preliminary reported at 15-day follow up. Time to clinical improvement was not decreased in Wang et al. RCT, but median time to recovery was decreased by 4 days in ACTT-1. Remdesivir did not decrease all-cause mortality (RR 0.71, 95%CI 0.39 to 1.28) and need for invasive ventilation at 14 days (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.23 to 1.42), but had fewer SAEs (RR 0.77, 95%CI 0.63 to 0.94). AEs were similar between remdesivir and placebo arms. Risk of bias ranged from some concerns to high risk in RCTs. Interpretation: There is paucity of adequately powered and fully reported RCTs evaluating effects of remdesivir in adult, hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Remdesivir should not be recommended for the treatment of severe COVID-19.

IntroductionWe systematically reviewed benefits and harms of convalescent plasma (CP) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.Material and methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing CP effects on hospitalized, adult COVID-19 patients were searched until November 24, 2020. We assessed risk of bias (RoB) using Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed. Quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE methodology. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinical improvement, and adverse events.ResultsFive RCTs (n = 1067) and 6 cohorts (n = 881) were included. Three and 1 RCTs had some concerns and high RoB, respectively; and there was serious RoB in all cohorts. Convalescent plasma did not reduce all-cause mortality in RCTs of severe (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.33–1.10) or moderate (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.09–3.86) COVID-19 vs. standard of care (SOC); CP reduced all-cause mortality vs. SOC in cohorts (RR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.49–0.91). Convalescent plasma did not reduce invasive ventilation vs. SOC in moderate disease (RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.47–1.55). In comparison to placebo + SOC, CP did not affect all-cause mortality (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.48–1.16) or clinical improvement (HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.82–1.40) in severe patients. Adverse and serious adverse events were scarce, similar between CP and controls. Quality of evidence was low or very low for most outcomes.ConclusionsIn comparison to SOC or placebo + SOC, CP did not reduce all-cause mortality in RCTs of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Convalescent plasma did not have an effect on other clinical or safety outcomes. Until now there is no good quality evidence to recommend CP for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

The publication rate of abstract submitted at national scientific meetings of medical students in Peru is low. New strategies should be taken, and the existing ones should be reinforced in order to increase the publication rate of the abstract submitted.