ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab is an anti-human interleukin 6 receptor monoclonal antibody that has been used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, there is no consensus on its efficacy for the treatment of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of tocilizumab for treating COVID-19. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic Review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and IBECS for RCTs published up to March 2021. Two authors selected studies and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence following Cochrane Recommendations. RESULTS: Eight RCTs with 6,139 participants were included. We were not able to find differences between using tocilizumab compared to standard care on mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.13; 8 trials; 5,950 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, hospitalized patients under tocilizumab plus standard care treatment seemed to present a significantly lower risk of needing mechanical ventilation (risk ratio = 0.78; 95% CI 0.64−0.94 moderate-certainty of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: To date, the best evidence available shows no difference between using tocilizumab plus standard care compared to standard care alone for reducing mortality in patients with COVID-19. However, as a finding with a practical implication, the use of tocilizumab in association to standard care probably reduces the risk of progressing to mechanical ventilation in those patients. REGISTRATION: osf.io/qe4fs. BACKGROUND antihuman anti human 201 COVID19. COVID19 COVID 19 . (COVID-19) However 19. OBJECTIVE SETTING RCTs, , (RCTs) UNIFESP, UNIFESP (UNIFESP) SP, SP (SP) Brazil METHODS PubMed EMBASE CENTRAL 2021 Recommendations RESULTS 6139 139 6,13 included COVID-1 RR (RR 097 0 97 0.97 95 (CI 084 84 0.8 1.13 113 1 13 5950 5 950 5,95 lowcertainty low evidence. evidence) 0.78 078 78 064094 64 94 0.64−0.9 moderatecertainty moderate CONCLUSIONS date implication REGISTRATION osfioqe4fs osfioqefs osf io qe4fs qe fs osf.io/qe4fs 20 COVID1 (COVID-19 (RCTs (UNIFESP (SP 202 613 6,1 COVID- 09 9 0.9 08 0. 1.1 11 595 5,9 0.7 07 7 06409 0.64−0. osfioqe qefs 2 (COVID-1 61 6, 1. 59 5, 0640 0.64−0 (COVID- 064 0.64− (COVID 06 0.64 0.6

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab is an anti-human interleukin 6 receptor monoclonal antibody that has been used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, there is no consensus on its efficacy for the treatment of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of tocilizumab for treating COVID-19. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic Review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and IBECS for RCTs published up to March 2021. Two authors selected studies and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence following Cochrane Recommendations. RESULTS: Eight RCTs with 6,139 participants were included. We were not able to find differences between using tocilizumab compared to standard care on mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.13; 8 trials; 5,950 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, hospitalized patients under tocilizumab plus standard care treatment seemed to present a significantly lower risk of needing mechanical ventilation (risk ratio = 0.78; 95% CI 0.64−0.94 moderate-certainty of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: To date, the best evidence available shows no difference between using tocilizumab plus standard care compared to standard care alone for reducing mortality in patients with COVID-19. However, as a finding with a practical implication, the use of tocilizumab in association to standard care probably reduces the risk of progressing to mechanical ventilation in those patients. REGISTRATION: osf.io/qe4fs.

Background and objectives: The new coronavirus pandemic has so far caused around 3 million deaths worldwide and significant changes in the population's routine. Social distancing, the use of masks and general restrictions are advocated by governments as mandatory non-drug primary strategies, which must be incorporated into society for a long time. The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of governmental non-drug strategies for COVID-19. Study design: This is a scoping review. Methodology: Search for studies at Medline / PUBMED, at the Cochrane Library and at EMBASE. DECS descriptors were used and there were no geographical and temporal restrictions on publications. The inclusion criteria involved human studies covering exposure to governmental non-drug strategies, with social distance, the use of masks and lockdown being a priority. Results: The search strategy retrieved 365 citations and, of these, 9 studies were included in this review. Discussion: Most studies involve observational studies and suggest that social distance, lockdown and the use of facial masks can reduce the incidence of new cases of COVID-19. Conclusion: The strategies of physical distance, lockdown and the use of facial masks had a beneficial result in most of the studies analyzed, contributing to the reduction of new cases of COVID-19.

Contextualização e objetivos: A pandemia do novo coronavírus causou até o momento cerca de 3 milhões de mortes no mundo e mudanças significativas na rotina da população. O distanciamento social, o uso de máscaras e as restrições gerais são preconizadas pelos governos como estratégias primárias obrigatórias não medicamentosas, que devem ser incorporadas à sociedade por muito tempo. O presente estudo teve como objetivo avaliar a eficácia das estratégias governamentais não medicamentosas para COVID-19. Desenho de estudo: Trata-se de scoping review. Metodologia: Procedeu-se à busca por estudos no Medline/PUBMED, na Cochrane Library e na EMBASE. Foram utilizados descritores do DECS e não houve restrição geográfica e temporal das publicações. Os critérios de inclusão envolveram estudos em humanos abrangendo a exposição às estratégias governamentais não medicamentosas, sendo prioridade o distanciamento social, o uso de máscaras e o lockdown. Resultados: A estratégia de busca recuperou 365 citações e, destas, 9 estudos foram incluídos nessa revisão. Discussão: A maioria dos estudos envolve estudos observacionais e sugerem que o distanciamento social, o lockdown e o uso de máscaras faciais podem reduzir a incidência de novos casos de COVID-19. Conclusão: As estratégias de distanciamento físico, de lockdown e o uso de máscaras faciais apresentaram resultado benéfico na maioria dos estudos analisados, contribuindo para a redução de novos casos de COVID-19.

Context: COVID-19 is a viral disease that has recently emerged and is associated with severe respiratory distress syndrome (SARS). Its potential for severity and impact on the health of the population and the global economy is a prime object in the search for effective therapy and ivermectin has been recommended for prevention and treatment. Objective: To evaluate the evidence in the literature regarding the use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of cases of COVID-19. Study design: This is a synopsis of evidence. Methods: We searched the electronic databases PubMed (1966-2021), EMBASE (1974-2021) and Clinical Trials (2021) and two evidence megabusers: Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) database (2021) and Epstemonikos (2021). There was no geographic or language restriction, using DeCS descriptors and terms (Health Sciences Descriptors). The synthesis method involved the combination of similar studies in a narrative review. Results: 527 citations were identified and 5 studies were included. There are few completed clinical trials, all of which have a small sample size. Discussion: Most of the studies available in the literature are based on in vitro therapeutic responses and the recommendation for use in humans has been based on the findings of these studies. The question cannot be answered with current studies, and quality clinical trials are recommended. Conclusions: There is currently no support in the literature for the use of ivermectin in the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.

Contexto: A COVID-19 é uma doença viral que surgiu recentemente e associada à síndrome da angústia respiratória severa (SARS). Seu potencial de gravidade e impacto na saúde da população e economia global é objeto primordial na busca por uma terapêutica eficaz ea ivermectina tem sido recomendada para prevenção e tratamento da COVID-19. Objetivo: avaliar como evidências na literatura relativa ao uso de ivermectina para prevenção e tratamento de casos de COVID-19. Desenho de estudo: Trata-se de sinopse de evidências. Métodos:Procedeu-se à busca de bases eletrônicas de dados PubMed (1966-2021), EMBASE (1974-2021) e Clinical Trials (2021) e em dois megabuscadores de evidências: Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) database (2021) e Epstemonikos ( 2021). Não houve restrição geográfica e de idioma, sendo utilizados descritores e termos do DeCS (Descritores em Ciências da Saúde). O método de síntese envolveu uma combinação de estudos semelhantes em uma revisão narrativa. Resultados: Foram identificados 527 citações e 5 estudos foram incluídos. Há poucos ensaios clínicos concluídos todos apresentam pequena. Discussão: A maioria dos estudos disponíveis na literatura respalda-se em respostas terapêuticas in vitroea recomendação para uso em humanos tem-se baseado nos achados desses estudos. A questão não pode ser respondida com os estudos atuais, sendo recomendada a realização de ensaios de qualidade. Conclusões: Não há suporte atualmente na literatura para uso da ivermectina na prevenção ou tratamento COVID-19.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID) are at increased risk of infection. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether patients undergoing pharmacological treatment for IMID present higher risk of worse outcomes when diagnosed with COVID-19. DESIGN AND SETTING: Rapid systematic review conducted in the medical school of the Federal University of São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, SCOPUS, Web of Science, L·OVE, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO-ICTRP for studies evaluating patients diagnosed with COVID-19 who were undergoing pharmacological treatment for IMID. Two authors selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence, following the Cochrane recommendations. RESULTS: We identified 1,498 references, from which one cohort study was included. This compared patients with and without rheumatic diseases (RD) who all had been diagnosed with COVID-19. Those with RD seemed to have higher chances of hospitalization and mortality, but no statistical difference was detected between the groups: hospitalization: odds ratio (OR) 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.6 to 2.29; mortality rate: OR 1.53; 95% CI 0.33 to 7.11 (very low certainty of evidence). Patients with RD were three times more likely to require admission to intensive care units (ICUs), with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), than those without RD: OR 3.72; 95% CI 1.35 to 10.26 (for both outcomes; very low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing pharmacological treatment for IMID seem to present higher chances of requiring admission to ICUs, with IMV. Additional high-quality studies are needed to analyze the effects of different treatments for IMID.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: The numbers of cases of arboviral diseases have increased in tropical and subtropical regions while the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic overwhelms healthcare systems worldwide. The clinical manifestations of arboviral diseases, especially dengue fever, can be very similar to COVID-19, and misdiagnoses are still a reality. In the meantime, outcomes for patients and healthcare systems in situations of possible syndemic have not yet been clarified. OBJECTIVE: We set out to conduct a systematic review to understand and summarize the evidence relating to clinical manifestations, disease severity and prognoses among patients coinfected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and arboviruses. METHODS: We conducted a rapid systematic review with meta-analysis, on prospective and retrospective cohorts, case-control studies and case series of patients with confirmed diagnoses of SARS-CoV-2 and arboviral infection. We followed the Cochrane Handbook recommendations. We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Scopus and Web of Science to identify published, ongoing and unpublished studies. We planned to extract data and assess the risk of bias and the certainty of evidence of the studies included, using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment. RESULTS: We were able to retrieve 2,407 citations using the search strategy, but none of the studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. CONCLUSION: The clinical presentations, disease severity and prognoses of patients coinfected with SARS-CoV-2 and arboviruses remain unclear. Further prospective studies are necessary in order to provide useful information for clinical decision-making processes. Protocol registration number in the PROSPERO database: CRD42020183460

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: The current health crisis due to COVID-19 is forcing us to profoundly rethink our social organizations and practices in health. While there is no effective treatment for the virus, staying home and social isolation are the control measures recommended by health authorities. The aim of this study is to perform a scoping review in order to summarize the current evidence in telehealth for COVID-19. METHODS: This study is a protocol to describe the rationale, hypothesis and planned methods of our scoping review. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, qualitative studies, and/or case series that describe telehealth interventions applied or developed to respond to COVID-19. We will search Medline via PubMed, Embase via Elsevier, Cochrane Library - Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Portal Regional BVS - LILACS, and Scopus. We will include studies performed since December 2019 with no language restrictions. We will use the Risk of Bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to perform the critical appraisal of included studies. We will assess the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has emerged in China in December 2019 and rapidly spread. Although extraordinary efforts have been made on research regarding pharmacological interventions, none have proven effective. This is the protocol for a rapid living systematic review that aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of different pharmacological interventions for the treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: rapid living systematic review methodology with Network Meta-Analysis following the recommendations of Cochrane Handbook. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCTs that evaluate single and/or combined pharmacological interventions at any dose for the treatment of COVID-19. We will search Medline via PubMed, Embase via Elsevier, Cochrane Library - Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Portal Regional BVS - LILACS, Scopus and WebofScience to identify potentially eligible studies. No language restrictions will be used in the selection. We will perform the critical appraisal of included studies with the Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Determining prognostic factors in a context of health crises such as the COVID-19 scenario may provide the best possible care for patients and optimize the management and the resource utilization of the health system. Thus, we aim to systematically review the prognostic factors for different outcomes of patients with COVID-19. DESIGN AND SETTING: Protocol for a rapid living systematic review methodology following the recommendations proposed by the Cochrane Handbook. METHODS: We will include cohorts and case‐control studies. We will search Medline via PubMed, Embase via Elsevier, Cochrane Library - Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Portal Regional BVS- LILACS, Scopus and WebofScience to identify studies. No language restrictions will be applied. We will perform the critical appraisal of included studies with the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool and the certainty of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: We propose to systematically review the available evidence to evaluate if patients with immune mediated or inflammatory diseases under pharmacological treatment with immunosuppressants, immunobiologics, DMARDs or targeted synthetic DMARDs have better or worse outcomes when infected by SARS-CoV-2. This study is a protocol for our rapid living systematic review. METHODS: Protocol for a rapid living systematic review methodology following the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) guidance. To conduct the rapid systematic review, we will employ abbreviated systematic review methods, including: not performing independent screens of abstracts and not searching grey literature. As this will be a living review, it will be continuously updated.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Shoulder pain is considered to be the third largest cause of musculoskeletal functional alterations in individuals presenting pain during movement. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this synthesis of evidence was to identify the clinical effectiveness of conservative and surgical treatments reported in Cochrane systematic reviews among individuals diagnosed with rotator cuff disease. DESIGNAND SETTING: Review of systematic reviews, conducted in the Federal University of São Paulo (Universidade Federal de São Paulo, UNIFESP). METHODS: This synthesis of evidence included systematic reviews that had been published in the Cochrane database. The inclusion criteria were that these systematic reviews should involve individuals aged ≥ 16 years with rotator cuff disease, comparing surgical procedures with or without associated nonsurgical procedures versus placebo, no treatment or other nonsurgical interventions. RESULTS: Thirty-one systematic reviews were included, involving comparisons between surgical procedures and conservative treatment; procedures either combined or not combined with drugs, versus other procedures; and procedures involving exercises, manual therapy and electrothermal or phototherapeutic resources. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that strengthening exercises, with or without associated manual therapy techniques and other resources, were the interventions with greatest power of treatment over the medium and long terms, for individuals with shoulder pain. These had greater therapeutic power than surgical procedures, electrotherapy or photobiomodulation. Protocol registration number in the PROSPERO database: ID - CRD42018096578.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Aortic valve stenosis is the most common type of valvular heart disease in the USA and Europe. Aortic valve stenosis is considered similar to atherosclerotic disease. Some studies have evaluated statins for aortic valve stenosis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of statins in aortic valve stenosis. METHODS: Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS - IBECS, Web of Science and CINAHL Plus. These databases were searched from their inception to 24 November 2015. We also searched trials in registers for ongoing trials. We used no language restrictions. Selection criteria: Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing statins alone or in association with other systemic drugs to reduce cholesterol levels versus placebo or usual care. Data collection and analysis: Primary outcomes were severity of aortic valve stenosis (evaluated by echocardiographic criteria: mean pressure gradient, valve area and aortic jet velocity), freedom from valve replacement and death from cardiovascular cause. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization for any reason, overall mortality, adverse events and patient quality of life. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The GRADE methodology was employed to assess the quality of result findings and the GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager 5.3 to create a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs with 2360 participants comparing statins (1185 participants) with placebo (1175 participants). We found low-quality evidence for our primary outcome of severity of aortic valve stenosis, evaluated by mean pressure gradient (mean difference (MD) -0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.88 to 0.80; participants = 1935; studies = 2), valve area (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.14; participants = 127; studies = 2), and aortic jet velocity (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.14; participants = 155; study = 1). Moderate-quality evidence showed no effect on freedom from valve replacement with statins (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06; participants = 2360; studies = 4), and no effect on muscle pain as an adverse event (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.09; participants = 2204; studies = 3; moderate-quality evidence). Low- and very low-quality evidence showed uncertainty around the effect of statins on death from cardiovascular cause (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.15; participants = 2297; studies = 3; low-quality evidence) and hospitalization for any reason (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.84; participants = 155; study = 1; very low-quality evidence). None of the four included studies reported on overall mortality and patient quality of life. AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS: Result findings showed uncertainty surrounding the effect of statins for aortic valve stenosis. The quality of evidence from the reported outcomes ranged from moderate to very low. These results give support to European and USA guidelines (2012 and 2014, respectively) that so far there is no clinical treatment option for aortic valve stenosis.