Search

Objective: Data are scarce regarding hospital infection control committees and compliance with infection prevention and control (IPC) recommendations in Brazil, a country of continental dimensions. We assessed the main characteristics of infection control committees (ICCs) on healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) in Brazilian hospitals., Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in ICCs of public and private hospitals distributed across all Brazilian regions. Data were collected directly from the ICC staff by completing an online questionnaire and during on-site visits through face-to-face interviews., Results: In total, 53 Brazilian hospitals were evaluated from October 2019 to December 2020. All hospitals had implemented the IPC core components in their programs. All centers had protocols for the prevention and control of ventilator-associated pneumonia as well as bloodstream, surgical site, and catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Most hospitals (80%) had no budget specifically allocated to the IPC program; 34% of the laundry staff had received specific IPC training; and only 7.5% of hospitals reported occupational infections in healthcare workers., Conclusions: In this sample, most ICCs complied with the minimum requirements for IPC programs. The main limitation regarding ICCs was the lack of financial support. The findings of this survey support the development of strategic plans to improve IPCs in Brazilian hospitals., Competing Interests: A.P.Z. is a research fellow of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, Ministry of Science and Technology, Brazil. A.P.Z. received a research grant from Pfizer and was a member of the advisory board for Spero Therapeutics and Eurofarma. All other authors have no competing interests to declare., (© The Author(s) 2023.)

Background: Repurposed drugs for treatment of new onset disease may be an effective therapeutic shortcut. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of repurposed antivirals compared to placebo in lowering SARS-CoV2 viral load of COVID-19 patients., Methods: REVOLUTIOn is a randomised, parallel, blinded, multistage, superiority and placebo controlled randomised trial conducted in 35 centres in Brazil. We include patients aged 18 years or older admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptoms onset 9 days or less and SpO 2 94% or lower at room air were eligible. All participants were randomly allocated to receive either atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir/daclatasvir or placebo for 10 days. The primary outcome was the decay rate (slope) of the SARS-CoV-2 viral load logarithm assessed in the modified intention to-treat population. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04468087., Findings: Between February 09, 2021, and August 04, 2021, 255 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to atazanavir (n = 64), daclatasvir (n = 66), sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (n = 67) or placebo (n = 58). Compared to placebo group, the change from baseline to day 10 in log viral load was not significantly different for any of the treatment groups (0.05 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.12], -0.02 [95% CI, -0.09 to 0.06], and -0.03 [95% CI, -0.11 to 0.04] for atazanavir, daclatasvir and sofosbuvir/daclatasvir groups respectively). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between treatment groups., Interpretation: No significant reduction in viral load was observed from the use of atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir/daclatasvir compared to placebo in hospitalised COVID-19 patients who need oxygen support with symptoms onset 9 days or less., Funding: Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTI) - Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPQ); Cia Latino-Americana de Medicamentos (Clamed); Cia Industrial H. Carlos Schneider (Ciser); Hospital Research Foundation Incorporation, Australia, HCor São Paulo; Blanver Farmoquímica; Instituto de Tecnologia em Fármacos (Farmanguinhos) da Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz); Coordenação Geral de Planejamento Estratégico (Cogeplan)/Fiocruz; and Fundação de apoio a Fiocruz (Fiotec, VPGDI-054-FIO-20-2-13)., Competing Interests: ISM reports devices supply from Fisher & Paykel outside the submitted work; ISM and ABC reports funding paid to HCor by Ministerio da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTIC)/Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPQ), Cia Latino Americana de Medicamentos (Clamed); Cia Industrial H. Carlos Schneider (Ciser); Hospital Research Foundation Incorporation, Australia, HCor São Paulo; Blanver Farmoquímica; Instituto de Tecnologia em Fármacos (Farmanguinhos) da Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz); Coordenação Geral de Planejamento Estratégico (Cogeplan)/Fiocruz; and Fundação de apoio a Fiocruz; LPD reports personal statistical Consulting fees from Servier Laboratories, Aché Laboratory and Astra Zeneca; FGZ reports grants for investigator initiated trials paid to his institution from Bactiguard, Ionis Pharmaceuticals and statistical Consulting from Bactiguard; RGR reported research grants from Pfizer and Brazilian Ministry of Health-PROADI-SUS; LCPA reported participation on advisory board of COVID-19 drugs for MSD; OB reported grants or contracts from: AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Pfizer, BMS Servier, Novartis Boehringer-Ingelheim, RDL reports grants or contracts from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Glaxo Smith Kline, Medtronic, Pfizer, Sanofi with payments to his institution, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers, manuscript writing from Pfizer, Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board of Glaxo Smith Kline and Consulting fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingleheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Glaxo Smith Kline, Medtronic, Merck, Pfizer, Portola and Sanofi; AA reports grants form Population Health Research Institute, EMS and Bayer as funding to his institution, payment for lectures for EMS and Bayer. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Objective: To describe the IMPACTO-MR, a Brazilian nationwide intensive care unit platform study focused on the impact of health care-associated infections due to multidrug-resistant bacteria., Methods: We described the IMPACTO-MR platform, its development, criteria for intensive care unit selection, characterization of core data collection, objectives, and future research projects to be held within the platform., Results: The core data were collected using the Epimed Monitor System® and consisted of demographic data, comorbidity data, functional status, clinical scores, admission diagnosis and secondary diagnoses, laboratory, clinical, and microbiological data, and organ support during intensive care unit stay, among others. From October 2019 to December 2020, 33,983 patients from 51 intensive care units were included in the core database., Conclusion: The IMPACTO-MR platform is a nationwide Brazilian intensive care unit clinical database focused on researching the impact of health care-associated infections due to multidrug-resistant bacteria. This platform provides data for individual intensive care unit development and research and multicenter observational and prospective trials.

Repurposed drugs are important in resource-limited settings because the interventions are more rapidly available, have already been tested safely in other populations and are inexpensive. Repurposed drugs are an effective solution, especially for emerging diseases such as COVID-19. The REVOLUTIOn trial has the objective of evaluating three repurposed antiviral drugs, atazanavir, daclatasvir and sofosbuvir, already used for HIV- and hepatitis C virus-infected patients in a randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive, multiarm, multistage study. The drugs will be tested simultaneously in a Phase II trial to first identify whether any of these drugs alone or in combination reduce the viral load. If they do, a Phase III trial will be initiated to investigate if these medications are capable of increasing the number of days free respiratory support. Participants must be hospitalized adults aged ≥ 18 years with initiation of symptoms ≤ 9 days and SpO2 ≤ 94% in room air or a need for supplemental oxygen to maintain an SpO2 > 94%. The expected total sample size ranges from 252 to 1,005 participants, depending on the number of stages that will be completed in the study. Hence, the protocol is described here in detail together with the statistical analysis plan. In conclusion, the REVOLUTIOn trial is designed to provide evidence on whether atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir decrease the SARS-CoV-2 load in patients with COVID-19 and increase the number of days patients are free of respiratory support. In this protocol paper, we describe the rationale, design, and status of the trial. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04468087.

Background: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been used to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, evidence on the safety and efficacy of these therapies is limited., Methods: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, three-group, controlled trial involving hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 who were receiving either no supplemental oxygen or a maximum of 4 liters per minute of supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive standard care, standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, or standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily plus azithromycin at a dose of 500 mg once daily for 7 days. The primary outcome was clinical status at 15 days as assessed with the use of a seven-level ordinal scale (with levels ranging from one to seven and higher scores indicating a worse condition) in the modified intention-to-treat population (patients with a confirmed diagnosis of Covid-19). Safety was also assessed., Results: A total of 667 patients underwent randomization; 504 patients had confirmed Covid-19 and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. As compared with standard care, the proportional odds of having a higher score on the seven-point ordinal scale at 15 days was not affected by either hydroxychloroquine alone (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 2.11; P = 1.00) or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.73; P = 1.00). Prolongation of the corrected QT interval and elevation of liver-enzyme levels were more frequent in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, than in those who were not receiving either agent., Conclusions: Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care. (Funded by the Coalition Covid-19 Brazil and EMS Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04322123.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Since there are some concerns about the effectiveness of highly active antiretroviral therapy in developing countries, we compared the initial combination antiretroviral therapy with zidovudine and lamivudine plus either nelfinavir or efavirenz at a university-based outpatient service in Brazil. This was a retrospective comparative cohort study carried out in a tertiary level hospital. A total of 194 patients receiving either nelfinavir or efavirenz were identified through our electronic database search, but only 126 patients met the inclusion criteria. Patients were included if they were older than 18 years old, naive for antiretroviral therapy, and had at least 1 follow-up visit after starting the antiretroviral regimen. Fifty-one of the included patients were receiving a nelfinavir-based regimen and 75 an efavirenz-based regimen as outpatients. Antiretroviral therapy was prescribed to all patients according to current guidelines. By intention-to-treat (missing/switch = failure), after a 12-month period, 65% of the patients in the efavirenz group reached a viral load <400 copies/mL compared to 41% of the patients in the nelfinavir group (P = 0.01). The mean CD4 cell count increase after a 12-month period was also greater in the efavirenz group (195 x 10(6) cells/L) than in the nelfinavir group (119 x 10(6) cells/L; P = 0.002). The efavirenz-based regimen was superior compared to the nelfinavir-based regimen. The low response rate in the nelfinavir group might be partially explained by the difficulty of using a regimen requiring a higher patient compliance (12 vs 3 pills a day) in a developing country.