ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of wearing a mask to prevent COVID-19 infection. Methods: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort and case-control studies, considering the best level of evidence available. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Clinical Trials.gov) were searched to identify studies that evaluated the effectiveness of wearing masks compared with that of not wearing them during the COVID-19 pandemic. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Results: Of the 1,028 studies identified, 9 met the inclusion criteria (2 cohort studies and 7 case-control studies) and were included in the analysis. The meta-analysis using cohort studies alone showed statistically significant differences, wearing a cloth mask decreased by 21% [RD = −0.21 (95% CI, −0.34 to −0.07); I2 = 0%; p = 0,002] the risk of COVID-19 infection, but the quality of evidence was low. Regarding case-control studies, wearing a surgical mask reduced the chance of COVID-19 infection [OR = 0.51 (95% CI, 0.37-0.70); I2 = 47%; p = 0.0001], as did wearing an N95 respirator mask [OR = 0.31 (95% CI, 0.20-0.49); I2 = 0%; p = 0.00001], both with low quality of evidence. Conclusions: In this systematic review with meta-analysis, we showed the effectiveness of wearing masks in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection regardless of the type of mask (disposable surgical mask, common masks, including cloth masks, or N95 respirators), although the studies evaluated presented with low quality of evidence and important biases.

RESUMO Objetivo: Avaliar a eficácia do uso de máscaras na prevenção da infecção por COVID-19. Métodos: Revisão sistemática e meta-análise de estudos de coorte e caso-controle, considerando o melhor nível de evidência disponível. Bancos de dados eletrônicos (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials e ClinicalTrials.gov) foram pesquisados para identificar estudos que avaliassem a eficácia do uso de máscaras em comparação com ausência de seu uso durante a pandemia de COVID-19. O risco de viés e a qualidade da evidência foram avaliados usando a ferramenta Cochrane risk of bias e Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Resultados: Dos 1.028 estudos identificados, 9 preencheram os critérios de inclusão (2 estudos de coorte e 7 estudos de caso-controle) e foram incluídos na análise. A meta-análise usando apenas estudos de coorte mostrou diferenças estatisticamente significativas: o uso de máscara de tecido diminuiu 21% [(risk difference = −0,21 (IC 95%: −0,34 a −0,07); I2 = 0%; p = 0,002] o risco de infecção por COVID-19, mas a qualidade da evidência foi baixa. Em relação aos estudos caso-controle, o uso de máscara cirúrgica reduziu a chance de infecção por COVID-19 [OR = 0,51 (IC 95%: 0,37-0,70); I2 = 47%; p = 0,0001], assim como o uso de máscara respiratória N95 [OR = 0,31 (IC 95%: 0,20-0,49); I2 = 0%; p = 0,00001], ambos com baixa qualidade de evidência. Conclusões: Nesta revisão sistemática com meta-análise, demonstramos a eficácia do uso de máscaras na prevenção da infecção por SARS-CoV-2 independentemente do tipo de máscara (máscara cirúrgica descartável, máscaras comuns, incluindo máscaras de tecido, ou respiradores N95), embora os estudos avaliados apresentassem evidências de baixa qualidade e vieses importantes.

RESUMO Objetivo: Estudos na literatura sobre o uso de remdesivir no tratamento de pacientes com COVID-19 têm apresentado resultados divergentes. O objetivo deste estudo foi responder a perguntas a respeito do uso de remdesivir no tratamento de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 moderada a grave. Métodos: Trata-se de uma revisão sistemática e meta-análise de ensaios clínicos controlados randomizados (ECR) de fase 3 e estudos observacionais de coorte recuperados de diversos bancos de dados, comparando pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 moderada a grave recebendo remdesivir a controles. Resultados: Foram recuperados 207 estudos, dos quais 9 preencheram os critérios de elegibilidade e foram incluídos no estudo. A meta-análise somente dos ECR não mostrou diferenças estatisticamente significativas entre os grupos remdesivir e controle quanto à mortalidade ou ao uso de ventilação mecânica/oxigenação por membrana extracorpórea, e a qualidade das evidências foi moderada e baixa, respectivamente. O uso de remdesivir aumentou a taxa de recuperação em 6% (IC95%: 3-9; p = 0,004) e a taxa de melhora clínica em 7% (IC95%: 1-14; p = 0,02). Além disso, não foram observadas diferenças significativas entre os grupos remdesivir e controle quanto à mortalidade quando a meta-análise concentrou-se apenas nos estudos observacionais de coorte [diferença de risco = −0,01 (IC95%: −0,02 a 0,01); p = 0,32; qualidade das evidências: moderada], e o risco de eventos adversos foi de 4% (IC95%: −0,08 a 0,01; p = 0,09). Conclusões: O uso de remdesivir no tratamento de pacientes com COVID-19 moderada a grave não teve impacto significativo em desfechos clinicamente importantes.

ABSTRACT Objective: Studies in the literature regarding the use of remdesivir to treat COVID-19 patients have shown conflicting results. This study sought to answer questions related to the use of remdesivir for the treatment of patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19. Methods: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis including phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies selected from various databases, comparing patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19 receiving remdesivir and controls. Results: A total of 207 studies were retrieved, 9 of which met the eligibility criteria and were included in the study. The meta-analysis using RCTs alone showed no statistically significant differences regarding mortality or use of mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation between remdesivir and control groups, and the quality of evidence was moderate and low, respectively. The use of remdesivir increased the recovery rate by 6% (95% CI, 3-9); p = 0.004) and the clinical improvement rate by 7% (95% CI, 1-14); p = 0.02). Additionally, no significant differences in mortality were found between remdesivir and control groups when the meta-analysis used observational cohort studies alone (risk difference = −0.01 (95% CI, −0.02 to 0.01; p = 0.32), the quality of evidence being moderate, and the risk of adverse events was 4% ([95% CI, −0.08 to 0.01]; p = 0.09). Conclusions: The use of remdesivir for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 had no significant impact on clinically important outcomes.

RESUMO Objetivo: Responder a perguntas relacionadas ao uso de anticoagulantes no tratamento de pacientes com COVID-19. Métodos: Revisão sistemática e meta-análise de ensaios clínicos controlados randomizados de fase 3 comparando o uso de anticoagulantes em pacientes com COVID-19 não hospitalizados e hospitalizados. Os bancos de dados MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials e ClinicalTrials.gov foram investigados desde sua criação até 22 de janeiro de 2022. O risco de viés foi avaliado pela ferramenta de risco de viés da Cochrane, e a qualidade das evidências foi avaliada pelo sistema Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Resultados: Inicialmente foram selecionados 401 estudos. Destes, 9 preencheram os critérios de inclusão e, portanto, foram analisados (num total de 6.004 pacientes analisados). Em pacientes com COVID-19 não hospitalizados, não se observou diferença significativa entre anticoagulação profilática pós-alta e nenhuma intervenção no que tange a tromboembolismo venoso ou sangramento em 30 dias. Em pacientes com COVID-19 hospitalizados, a anticoagulação plena resultou em ligeira redução de eventos trombóticos em 30 dias (diferença de risco: −0,03; IC95%: −0,06 a −0,00; p = 0,04; I2 = 78%); a qualidade das evidências foi moderada. No entanto, não se observou diferença significativa entre anticoagulação plena e nenhuma intervenção quanto ao risco de sangramento maior; a qualidade das evidências foi muito baixa. Não se observou diferença significativa entre anticoagulação profilática com dose intermediária e dose-padrão (diferença de risco: −0,01; IC95%: −0,07 a 0,06; p = 0,81; I2 = 0%); a qualidade das evidências foi muito baixa. Conclusões: A anticoagulação terapêutica parece não ter efeito na mortalidade em pacientes com COVID-19, resultando em ligeira redução do tromboembolismo venoso em pacientes hospitalizados.

ABSTRACT Objective: To answer questions related to the use of anticoagulants in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Methods: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase 3 randomized controlled trials comparing the use of anticoagulants in non-hospitalized and hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to January 22, 2022. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, and the quality of evidence was assessed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Results: A total of 401 studies were initially selected. Of those, 9 met the inclusion criteria and were therefore analyzed (a total of 6,004 patients being analyzed). In non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients, no significant difference was found between post-discharge prophylactic anticoagulation and no intervention regarding venous thromboembolism or bleeding at 30 days. In hospitalized COVID-19 patients, full anticoagulation resulted in a slight reduction in thrombotic events at 30 days (risk difference, −0.03; 95% CI, −0.06 to −0.00; p = 0.04; I2 = 78%), the quality of evidence being moderate. However, no significant difference was found between full anticoagulation and no intervention regarding the risk of major bleeding, the quality of evidence being very low. No significant difference was found between intermediate- and standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (risk difference, −0.01; 95% CI, −0.07 to 0.06; p = 0.81; I2 = 0%), the quality of evidence being very low. Conclusions: Therapeutic anticoagulation appears to have no effect on mortality in COVID-19 patients, resulting in a slight reduction in venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients.

RESUMO Objetivo: A cloroquina ou hidroxicloroquina não apresentou nenhum efeito no tratamento de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19. O objetivo deste estudo foi responder a questões a respeito do uso de hidroxicloroquina na profilaxia da infecção por SARS-CoV-2 pré ou pós-exposição e no tratamento de pacientes com COVID-19 leve no tocante à hospitalização, eventos adversos e mortalidade. Métodos: Trata-se de uma revisão sistemática e meta-análise de ensaios clínicos controlados aleatórios de fase 3 que foram selecionados por meio de buscas em diversos bancos de dados e que compararam controles e pacientes que receberam hidroxicloroquina para profilaxia de SARS-CoV-2 ou tratamento de COVID-19 leve. Resultados: Foram identificados 1.376 estudos. Destes, 9 preencheram os critérios de elegibilidade e foram incluídos no estudo. Não foram encontradas diferenças significativas entre os grupos hidroxicloroquina e controle quanto à profilaxia da infecção por SARS-CoV-2 pré ou pós-exposição. O uso de hidroxicloroquina aumentou o risco de eventos adversos em 12% (IC95%: 6-18%; p < 0,001), e o número necessário para prejudicar foi 9. Não foram encontradas diferenças significativas entre os grupos hidroxicloroquina e controle quanto à hospitalização [diferença de risco (DR) = −0,02; IC95%: −0,04 a 0,00; p = 0,14] e mortalidade (DR = 0,00; IC95%: −0,01 a 0,02; p = 0,98) no tratamento de COVID-19 leve. Conclusões: Não é recomendado o uso de hidroxicloroquina nem na profilaxia da infecção por SARS-CoV-2 nem no tratamento de pacientes com COVID-19 leve.

ABSTRACT Objective: Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine has demonstrated no effect on the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to answer questions related to the use of hydroxychloroquine for pre-exposure or post-exposure prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and in the treatment of patients with mild COVID-19 in terms of hospitalization, adverse events, and mortality. Methods: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase 3 randomized clinical trials, selected from various databases, which compared patients who received hydroxychloroquine for SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis or treatment of mild COVID-19 cases with controls. Results: A total number of 1,376 studies were retrieved. Of those, 9 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the study. No statistically significant differences were found between the hydroxychloroquine and control groups in terms of pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The use of hydroxychloroquine increased the risk of adverse events by 12% (95% CI, 6-18%; p < 0.001), and the number needed to harm was 9. In addition, no significant differences were found between the hydroxychloroquine and control groups regarding hospitalization (risk difference [RD] = −0.02; 95% CI, −0.04 to 0.00; p = 0.14) or mortality (RD = 0.00; 95% CI, −0.01 to 0.02; p = 0.98) in the treatment of mild COVID-19. Conclusions: The use of hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 infection or treatment of patients with mild COVID-19 is not recommended.

In the advanced stages of AIDS, characterized by severe immunodepression, tuberculosis (TB) may present with a clinical picture of septic shock, due to typical bacteremia. Hematogenic dissemination of mycobacteria is frequent in immunodepressed patients with TB or disseminated mycobacteriosis, leading to increased positivity in detection by automated blood culture. The objective of our study was to determine the prevalence of mycobacteremia in patients with AIDS and with prolonged fever seen at the Emilio Ribas Institute of Infectology. Patients with a history of daily fever (37.8ºC), lasting more than 30 days, and with CD4+ helper lymphocyte counts below 200 cells/mL, were selected from February 2001 to March 2002. A 5 mL peripheral blood sample was collected from each patient for mycobacterial blood culture by an automated method, using the BACTEC 9000 MB and MB/BACT techniques. Forty-five patients aged on average 35 years, most of them males, were included in the study. The mean T CD4+ lymphocyte count was 58 cells/mL. Among the samples submitted to blood culture, 30% gave M. tuberculosis growth, with 62% sensitivity. Among the patients with a negative blood culture, nine had received a diagnosis of TB by another method. Automated blood culture proved to be a technique of relevant diagnostic value for M. tuberculosis in patients with prolonged fever in advanced stages of AIDS. The method is simple, and it helps the physician to select the best therapeutic option.

São apresentados quatro casos de leishmaniose em pacientes com SIDA, sendo dois de leishmaniose visceral e dois com forma cutâneo-mucosa. Lesões cutâneas e de mucosa oral, disseminadas, estavam presentes nos pacientes com a forma tegumentar da doença. Febre prolongada, hepatoesplenomegalia e pancitopenia foram as manifestações principais da forma visceral. A contagem de linfócitos T CD4+ era baixa em todos os casos. A pesquisa de leishmanias foi positiva no aspirado de medula óssea e na biópsia de lesões cutâneas e mucosas. Os pacientes responderam ao tratamento com antimoniais pentavalentes e com a anfotericina B. Poucos casos de coinfecção leishmaniose e HIV têm sido descritos em nosso meio. Apesar da ampla expansão de ambas, até agora suas áreas de distribuição geográfica teve pouca superposição. Os autores recomendam a inclusão desta parasitose no diagnostico diferencial das doenças oportunistas que acometem indivíduos com SIDA.

Few cases of concurrent leishmaniasis and HIV infection have been reported in Brazil, despite both infections being in expansion. Two cases of visceral leishmaniasis and two cases of mucocutaneous leishmaniasis are discussed. Disseminated skin and oral lesions were found in the patients with the cutaneous form of the disease. Prolonged fever, hepatosplenomegaly and pancytopenia were the main manifestations of the visceral form. The CD4 T lymphocyte count was low in all cases. Direct examination of bone marrow aspirate for leishmania and biopsy of cutaneous lesions are the techniques of choice to confirm diagnosis. Pentavalent antimonials and amphotericin B are preferred drugs for the treatment of leishmaniasis, including patients with AIDS. The authors recommend the inclusion of this parasitosis in the differential diagnosis of opportunistic diseases in patients with AIDS.