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.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis compromises bone strength and increases the risk of fractures. Zoledronate prevents loss of bone mass and reduces the risk of fractures. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of zoledronate in postmenopausal women with osteopenia and osteoporosis. DESIGN AND SETTINGS A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted within the evidence-based health program at the Universidade Federal de São Paulo. METHODS: An electronic search of the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS databases was performed until February 2022. Randomized controlled trials comparing zoledronate with placebo or other bisphosphonates were included. Standard methodological procedures were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook and the certainty of evidence for the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group. Two authors assessed the risk of bias and extracted data on fractures, adverse events, bone turnover markers (BTM), and bone mineral density (BMD). RESULTS: Twelve trials from 6,652 records were included: nine compared zoledronate with placebo, two trials compared zoledronate with alendronate, and one trial compared zoledronate with ibandronate. Zoledronate reduced the incidence of fractures in osteoporotic [three years: morphometric vertebral fractures (relative risk, RR = 0.30 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.24–0.38))] and osteopenic women [six years: morphometric vertebral fractures (RR = 0.39 (95%CI: 0.25–0.61))], increased incidence of post-dose symptoms [RR = 2.56 (95%CI: 1.80–3.65)], but not serious adverse events [RR = 0.97 (95%CI: 0.91–1.04)]. Zoledronate reduced BTM and increased BMD in osteoporotic and osteopenic women. CONCLUSION: This review supports the efficacy and safety of zoledronate in postmenopausal women with osteopenia for six years and osteoporosis for three years. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022309708, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=309708.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) is a tool for assessing evidence produced in synthesis reports. OBJECTIVES: To present the translation into Portuguese of the GRADE checklist, whose original version is in English, and to describe and explain each topic, in order to provide examples to researchers and professionals who will use the tool. DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive study developed at Centro Universitário Tiradentes, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil. METHODS: This was a translation of the GRADE checklist, with the addition of the Risk Of Bias In Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool in the checklist, with examples of its use. RESULTS: Situations of practical use of the tool were presented in order to facilitate and expand the use of assessment of the quality and strength of evidence among Portuguese speakers. CONCLUSIONS: The GRADE checklist is valuable in helping to assess the strength and quality of evidence for synthesis reports for healthcare decision-making.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: The speed of the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has put enormous pressure on hospitals and other healthcare facilities. This, together with blockages in several countries, has hindered the availability and accessibility of the necessary personal protective equipment (PPE). OBJECTIVE: To identify, systematically evaluate and summarize the available scientific evidence on the efficacy, safety, safe use and reuse of PPE for healthcare professionals, for preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of studies analyzing products for disinfecting and enabling reuse of PPE for coronavirus within the evidence-based health program of a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: A systematic search of the relevant literature was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science and LILACS databases, for articles published up to November 30, 2020. RESULTS: Ten studies were selected. These analyzed the use of N95, surgical and cotton masks, face shields, flexible enclosures with plastic covers or polycarbonate intubation boxes and plastic curtains; and also PPE disinfection using several substances. CONCLUSION: Combined use of a face shield with a N95 mask proved to be superior to other associations for protecting healthcare workers. Some products are useful for disinfecting PPE, such as 70% ethanol, 0.1% sodium hypochlorite and a mixture of quaternary ammonium and H2O2, and hydrogen peroxide. Ultraviolet light and dry heat at 70 °C can be used to decontaminate N95 masks. REGISTRATION NUMBER: DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/4V5FD at the OPENSCIENCE Framework.

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.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) is a tool for assessing evidence produced in synthesis reports. OBJECTIVES: To present the translation into Portuguese of the GRADE checklist, whose original version is in English, and to describe and explain each topic, in order to provide examples to researchers and professionals who will use the tool. DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive study developed at Centro Universitário Tiradentes, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil. METHODS: This was a translation of the GRADE checklist, with the addition of the Risk Of Bias In Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool in the checklist, with examples of its use. RESULTS: Situations of practical use of the tool were presented in order to facilitate and expand the use of assessment of the quality and strength of evidence among Portuguese speakers. CONCLUSIONS: The GRADE checklist is valuable in helping to assess the strength and quality of evidence for synthesis reports for healthcare decision-making.

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.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Faced with a pandemic, all healthcare actions need to reflect best practices, in order to avoid high transmissibility, complications and even hospitalizations. For hospital environments, the products recommended and authorized by regulatory institutions for environmental cleaning and disinfection need to be highly effective. OBJECTIVE: To identify, systematically evaluate and summarize the best available scientific evidence on environmental cleaning to prevent COVID-19 infection. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of studies analyzing cleaning products that inactivate coronavirus, conducted within the evidence-based health program of a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: A systematic search of the relevant literature was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and LILACS databases, for articles published up to May 27, 2020, relating to studies evaluating cleaning products that inactivate coronavirus in the environment. RESULTS: Seven studies were selected. These analyzed use of 70% alcohol, detergent, detergent containing iodine, household bleach, sodium hypochlorite, hydrogen peroxide, chlorine dioxide, glutaraldehyde, ultraviolet irradiation and plasma air purifier. The effectiveness of treating sewage with sodium hypochlorite and chlorine dioxide was also evaluated. CONCLUSION: Disinfection of environments, especially those in ordinary use, such as bathrooms, needs to be done constantly. Viral inactivation was achieved using chlorine-based disinfectants, alcohol, detergents, glutaraldehyde, iodine-containing detergents, hydrogen peroxide compounds and household bleaches. Alcohol showed efficient immediate activity. In sewage, sodium hypochlorite had better action than chlorine dioxide. REGISTRATION NUMBER: DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/YC5P4 in the Open Science Framework.

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: A positive real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS CoV-2, from nasopharyngeal swabs, is the current gold standard diagnostic test for this virus and has sensitivity of 60-70%. Some studies have demonstrated a significant number of false-negative RT-PCR tests while displaying significant tomographic findings, in the early days of symptoms of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To compare accuracy between RT-PCR and computed tomography (CT) for detecting COVID-19 in the first week of its symptoms during the pandemic. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of comparative studies of diagnostic accuracy within the Evidence-based Health Program of a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: A systematic search of the relevant literature was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and LILACS databases, for articles published up to June 6, 2020, relating to studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of RT-PCR and chest CT for COVID-19 diagnoses. The QUADAS 2 tool was used for methodological quality evaluation. RESULTS: In total, 1204 patients with COVID-19 were evaluated; 1045 had tomographic findings while 755 showed positive RT-PCR for COVID-19. RT-PCR demonstrated 81.4% sensitivity, 100% specificity and 92.3% accuracy. Chest CT demonstrated 95.3% sensitivity, 43.8% specificity and 63.3% accuracy. CONCLUSION: The high sensitivity and detection rates shown by CT demonstrate that this technique has a high degree of importance in the early stages of the disease. During an outbreak, the higher prevalence of the condition increases the positive predictive value of CT. REGISTRATION NUMBER: DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/UNGHA in the Open Science Framework.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: COVID-19 infection has high transmissibility and several measures have been adopted for controlling its dissemination. OBJECTIVE: To identify and summarize the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) regarding measures for controlling the dissemination of COVID-19 infection. DESIGN AND SETTING: This review of Cochrane SRs was carried out in the Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery and in the Division of Emergency Medicine and Evidence-Based Medicine of Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Brazil. METHODS: A comprehensive search in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews retrieved all Cochrane SRs directly related to measures for controlling COVID-19 dissemination. The main characteristics and results of all the SRs included were summarized and discussed. RESULTS: Three Cochrane SRs were included in the qualitative synthesis. These evaluated population-based and individual measures for controlling the dissemination of COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Low-certainty evidence shows that quarantine for people exposed to confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases prevented 44% to 81% of incident cases and 31% to 63% of deaths, compared with situations of no measures. Moreover, the sooner the quarantine measures were implemented, the greater the cost savings were. High-confidence evidence showed that clear communication about infection control and prevention guidelines was vital for successful implementation. Low-certainty evidence showed that healthcare professionals with long gowns were less exposed to contamination than were those using coveralls. In addition, coveralls were more difficult to doff. Further SRs on controlling the dissemination of COVID-19 infection are desirable.