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: 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. BACKGROUND OBJECTIVES metaanalysis meta analysis evidencebased based Paulo METHODS CENTRAL MEDLINE Embase 2022 included Assessment Development Group BTM, , (BTM) BMD. . (BMD) RESULTS 6652 6 652 6,65 alendronate ibandronate relative 030 0 30 0.3 95% 95 (95 interval CI 0.24–0.38 024038 24 38 0.24–0.38)) 039 39 95%CI 95CI (95%CI 0.25–0.61, 025061 0.25–0.61 25 61 0.25–0.61))] postdose post dose 256 2 56 2.5 1.80–3.65, 180365 1.80–3.65 1 80 3 65 1.80–3.65)] 097 97 0.9 0.91–1.04. 091104 0.91–1.04 91 04 0.91–1.04)] CONCLUSION NUMBER CRD42022309708 CRD https//www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.phpRecordID=309708. httpswwwcrdyorkacukprosperodisplayrecordphpRecordID309708 httpswwwcrdyorkacukprosperodisplayrecordphpRecordID https //www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php RecordID=309708. www crd york ac uk prospero display record php RecordID 309708 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=309708 202 (BTM (BMD 665 6,6 03 0. 9 (9 0.24–0.3 02403 0.24–0.38) 02506 0.25–0.6 0.25–0.61)) 5 2. 18036 1.80–3.6 8 1.80–3.65) 09 09110 0.91–1.0 0.91–1.04) CRD4202230970 phpRecordID https//www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.phpRecordID=309708 httpswwwcrdyorkacukprosperodisplayrecordphpRecordID30970 wwwcrdyorkacukprosperodisplayrecordphp RecordID309708 RecordID=309708 30970 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=30970 20 66 6, ( 0.24–0. 0240 0250 0.25–0. 0.25–0.61) 1803 1.80–3. 0911 0.91–1. CRD420223097 https//www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.phpRecordID=30970 httpswwwcrdyorkacukprosperodisplayrecordphpRecordID3097 RecordID30970 RecordID=30970 3097 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=3097 0.24–0 024 025 0.25–0 180 1.80–3 091 0.91–1 CRD42022309 https//www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.phpRecordID=3097 httpswwwcrdyorkacukprosperodisplayrecordphpRecordID309 RecordID3097 RecordID=3097 309 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=309 0.24– 02 0.25– 18 1.80– 0.91– CRD4202230 https//www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.phpRecordID=309 httpswwwcrdyorkacukprosperodisplayrecordphpRecordID30 RecordID309 RecordID=309 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=30 0.24 0.25 1.80 0.91 CRD420223 https//www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.phpRecordID=30 httpswwwcrdyorkacukprosperodisplayrecordphpRecordID3 RecordID30 RecordID=30 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=3 0.2 1.8 CRD42022 https//www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.phpRecordID=3 RecordID3 RecordID=3 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID= 1. CRD4202 https//www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.phpRecordID= RecordID= https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID CRD420 https//www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.phpRecordID CRD42 CRD4

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: Use of inhaled corticosteroids for managing acute asthma exacerbations has been tested since the 1990s. OBJECTIVE: To compare high doses of inhaled ciclesonide with systemic hydrocortisone for managing acute asthma exacerbations in the emergency department. DESIGN AND SETTING: Double-blind, randomized clinical trial in the public healthcare system of the city of São Paulo. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients with moderate or severe asthma with peak flow < 50% of predicted were randomized into two groups. Over the course of four hours, one group received 1440 mcg of inhaled ciclesonide plus hydrocortisone-identical placebo (ciclesonide + placebo), while the other received 500 mg of intravenous hydrocortisone plus ciclesonide-identical placebo (hydrocortisone + placebo). Both groups received short-acting bronchodilators (fenoterol hydrobromide and ipratropium bromide). The research protocol included spirometry, clinical evaluation, vital signs and electrocardiogram monitoring. Data were obtained at 30 (baseline), 60, 90, 120, 180, and 240 minutes. We compared data from baseline to hour 4, between and within groups. RESULTS: Overall, 31 patients received ciclesonide + placebo and 27 received hydrocortisone + placebo. Inhaled ciclesonide was as effective as intravenous hydrocortisone for improving clinical parameters (Borg-scored dyspnea, P = 0.95; sternocleidomastoid muscle use, P = 0.55; wheezing, P = 0.55; respiratory effort, P = 0.95); and spirometric parameters (forced vital capacity, P = 0.50; forced expiratory volume in the first second, P = 0.83; peak expiratory flow, P = 0.51). CONCLUSIONS: Inhaled ciclesonide was not inferior to systemic hydrocortisone for managing acute asthma exacerbations, and it improved both clinical and spirometric parameters. TRIAL REGISTRATION: RBR-6XWC26 - Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos (http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-6xwc26/).

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.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: In Brazil, the right to healthcare and the incorporation of best scientific evidence in public health are universally guaranteed by law. However, the treatment offered to patients with mental disorders in custodial hospitals in this country has not been rigorously evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To analyze the psychiatric diagnoses and treatments implemented in three Brazilian custodial institutions. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional and descriptive study on patients held in custody in three Brazilian institutions, as judicially-determined safety measures due to their mental disorders, and the tools used in diagnoses and treatments. These institutions are in Rio de Janeiro and the Federal District. METHODS: The data from medical and judicial records that were made available were assessed regarding the diagnoses that were made and the instruments that were used. RESULTS: None of these inpatients were evaluated using validated tools, and only a few medical records presented clear descriptions of the cases. No patient with substance involvement had undergone laboratory toxicological assays. It was not possible to verify the adequacy of treatments because the procedures were inadequately described in the records. CONCLUSIONS: No standardized protocols or instruments for diagnosing mental health disorders or assessing use of psychoactive substances had been applied among the inpatients at these custodial institutions in Rio de Janeiro and the Federal District. The treatments that were prescribed to these inpatients consisted mainly of drugs.

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: 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: 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