ABSTRACT Objective We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients. Methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS (January 2019 to March 2021) for patients aged 18 years or older, who had COVID-19 and were treated with hydroxychloroquine versus placebo or standard of care. We also searched the WHO Clinical Trials Registry for ongoing and recently completed studies, and the reference lists of selected articles and reviews for possible relevant studies, with no restrictions regarding language or publication status. Random-effects models were used to obtain pooled mean differences of treatment effect on mortality, and serious adverse effects between hydroxychloroquine and the Control Group (standard of care or placebo); heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 and the Cochran´s Q statistic. Results Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in mortality rate between patients treated with hydroxychloroquine compared to standard of care or placebo (16.7% versus 18.5%; pooled risk ratio 1.09; 95% confidence interval: 0.99-1.19). Also, the rate of serious adverse effects was similar between both Groups, Hydroxychloroquine and Control (3.7% versus 2.9%; pooled risk ratio 1.22; 95% confidence interval: 0.76-1.96). Conclusion Hydroxychloroquine is not efficacious in reducing mortality of COVID-19 patients. Prospero database registration (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero) under number CRD42020197070.

RESUMO Várias iniciativas aconteceram nos últimos anos em relação ao controle das infecções no ambiente hospitalar para aumentar a segurança do paciente. Algumas dessas iniciativas são comentadas nesta breve revisão.

ABSTRACT Several initiatives took place in recent years in relation to nosocomial infection control in order to increase patient safety. Some of these initiatives will be commented in this brief review.

Objetivo Testar e validar um método molecular multiplex para detecção de infecções sanguíneas, além de comparar os resultados com os obtidos pela hemocultura convencional.Métodos Os testes de hemocultura e o LightCycler® SeptiFast foram realizados em 114 pacientes consecutivos com evidência clínica de sepse.Resultados Mais amostras positivas (23; 20,2%) foram detectadas pelo LightCycler® SeptiFast do que pela hemocultura (17; 14,9%), mostrando concordância de 86,8%. Os resultados discordantes foram de quatro pacientes positivos apenas para hemocultura, dez positivos apenas para LightCycler® SeptiFast e um com patógenos diferentes encontrados em cada método. Infecções por micro-organismos não reconhecidos pelo LightCycler® SeptiFast e detectados apelas pela hemocultura confirmam a necessidade da realização dos dois métodos. O tempo médio para os resultados da hemocultura foi de 5 dias para amostras negativas e de 3,5 dias para as positivas. Os resultados pelo LightCycler® SeptiFast foram obtidos em menos de 8 horas.Conclusão O LightCycler® SeptiFast mostrou ser um teste de grande potencial para ser realizado simultaneamente à hemocultura para diagnóstico de sepse em doentes graves, permitindo um diagnóstico mais rápido de infecções por bactérias e fungos e, dessa forma, auxiliando a redução do tempo de hospitalização e racionalização do uso de antibióticos. Eventualmente, o LightCycler® SeptiFast pode detectar inclusive infecções por micro-organismos dificilmente detectáveis via hemocultura, especialmente aquelas causadas por Candida nãoalbicans.

Objective To test and validate a multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction method for bloodstream infections, as well as to compare the results with conventional blood culture.Methods A total of 114 consecutive patients with clinical evidence of sepsis were submitted to blood culture and LightCycler™ SeptiFast tests.Results More positive specimens (23; 20.2%) were detected using the LightCycler™ SeptiFast than the blood culture (17; 14.9%), with an agreement of 86.8%. Discordant results were seen in four patients positive only to blood culture, ten positive only to LightCycler™ SeptiFast and one to different pathogens found by each test. Infections with microorganisms detected only using blood culture reassured the need to perform both tests. The mean time to results for blood culture was 5 days for negative and 3.5 days for positive results. LightCycler™ SeptiFast results were achieved in less than 8 hours.Conclusion LightCycler™ SeptiFast showed a high potential as a test to be carried out concomitantly with blood culture for sepsis diagnosis in severely ill patients. This test allowed a faster diagnosis of bacterial and fungal infections that helped to reduce hospital stay and to control the use of antibiotics. LightCycler™ SeptiFast can also eventually detect microorganism and infections that are hardly detected by blood culture, especiallyCandidanon-albicans infections.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the presence of microorganism contamination in the preservation solution for transplant organs (kidney/pancreas). Method: Between August 2007 and March 2008, 136 samples of preservation solution were studied prior to graft implantation. Variables related to the donor and to the presence of microorganisms in the preservation solution of organs were evaluated, after which the contamination was evaluated in relation to the "recipient culture" variable. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: The contamination rate of the preservation solution was 27.9%. Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus was the most frequently isolated microorganism. However, highly virulent agents, such as fungi and enterobacteria, were also isolated. In univariate analysis, the variable "donor antibiotic use" was significantly associated to the contamination of the preservation solution. On the other hand, multivariate analysis found statistical significance in "donor antibiotic use" and "donor's infectious complications" variables. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, 27.9% of the preservation solutions of transplant organs were contaminated. Infectious diseases and non-use of antibiotics by the donor were significantly related to the presence of microorganisms in organ preservation solutions. Contamination in organ preservation solutions was not associated with infection in the recipient.

Although the introduction of alcohol based products have increased compliance with hand hygiene in intensive care units (ICU), no comparative studies with other products in the same unit and in the same period have been conducted. We performed a two-month-observational prospective study comparing three units in an adult ICU, according to hand hygiene practices (chlorhexidine alone-unit A, both chlorhexidine and alcohol gel-unit B, and alcohol gel alone-unit C, respectively). Opportunities for hand hygiene were considered according to an institutional guideline. Patients were randomly allocated in the 3 units and data on hand hygiene compliance was collected without the knowledge of the health care staff. TISS score (used for measuring patient complexity) was similar between the three different units. Overall compliance with hand hygiene was 46.7% (659/1410). Compliance was significantly higher after patient care in unit A when compared to units B and C. On the other hand, compliance was significantly higher only between units A (32.1%) and C (23.1%) before patient care (p=0.02). Higher compliance rates were observed for general opportunities for hand hygiene (patient bathing, vital sign controls, etc), while very low compliance rates were observed for opportunities related to skin and gastroenteral care. One of the reasons for not using alcohol gel according to health care workers was the necessity for water contact (35.3%, 12/20). Although the use of alcohol based products is now the standard practice for hand hygiene the abrupt abolition of hand hygiene with traditional products may not be recommended for specific services.