Search

Nitazoxanide is a broad-spectrum antiparasitic that has been tested for COVID-19 due to its anti-inflammatory effects and in vitro antiviral activity. This study synthesized the best evidence on the efficacy and safety of nitazoxanide in COVID-19.Searches for studies were performed in peer-reviewed and grey-literature from January 1, 2020 to May 23, 2022. The following elements were used to define eligibility criteria: (1) Population: individuals with COVID-19; (2) Intervention: nitazoxanide; (3) Comparison: placebo; (4) Outcomes: primary outcome was death, and secondary outcomes were viral load, positive RT-PCR status, serum biomarkers of inflammation, composite measure of disease progression (ICU admission or invasive mechanical ventilation), and any adverse events; (5) Study type: blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Treatment effects were reported as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous variables and standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous variables with 95% confidence intervals (CI).Five blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs were included and enrolled individuals with mild or moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection. We found no difference between nitazoxanide and placebo in reducing viral load (SMD = - 0.16; 95% CI - 0.38 to 0.05) and the frequency of positive RTP-PCR results (RR = 0.92; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06). In addition, there was no decreased risk for disease progression (RR = 0.63; 95% CI 0.38 to 1.04) and death (RR = 0.81; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.78) among patients receiving nitazoxanide. Patients with COVID-19 treated with nitazoxanide had decreased levels of white blood cells (SMD = - 0.15; 95% - 0.29 to - 0.02), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) (SMD - 0.32; 95% - 0.52 to - 0.13), and D-dimer (SMD - 0.49; 95% CI - 0.68 to - 0.31) compared to placebo, but the magnitude of effect was considered small to moderate.This systematic review showed no evidence of clinical benefits of the use of nitazoxanide to treat patients with mild or moderate COVID-19. In addition, we found a reduction in WBC, LDH, and D-dimer levels among nitazoxanide-treated patients, but the effect size was considered small to moderate.

Purpose: Nitazoxanide is a broad-spectrum antiparasitic that has been tested for COVID-19 due to its anti-inflammatory effects and in vitro antiviral activity. This study synthesized the best evidence on the efficacy and safety of nitazoxanide in COVID-19. Methods: Searches for studies were performed in peer-reviewed and grey-literature. The following elements were used to define eligibility criteria: (1) Population, individuals with COVID-19; (2) Intervention, nitazoxanide; (3) Comparison, placebo; (4) Outcomes: viral load, positive RT-PCR status, composite measure of disease progression (ICU admission or invasive mechanical ventilation), death, serum biomarkers of inflammation, and any adverse events; (5) Study type: blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Results: Five blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs were included and enrolled individuals with mild or moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection. We found no difference between nitazoxanide and placebo in reducing viral load and frequency of positive RTP-PCR results. In addition, there was no decreased risk for disease progression and death among patients receiving nitazoxanide. Patients with COVID-19 treated with nitazoxanide had decreased levels of white blood cells, lactate dehydrogenase, and D-dimer compared to placebo, but the magnitude of effect was considered small to moderate. Conclusion: Available evidence based on the results of blinded, placebo-controlled, RCTs showed no clinical benefits of nitazoxanide in COVID-19.

The Scientific Department of Neuroimmunology of the Brazilian Academy of Neurology (DCNI/ABN) and Brazilian Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and Neuroimmunological Diseases (BCTRIMS) provide recommendations in this document for vaccination of the population with demyelinating diseases of the central nervous system (CNS) against infections in general and against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes COVID-19. We emphasize the seriousness of the current situation in view of the spread of COVID-19 in our country. Therefore, reference guides on vaccination for clinicians, patients, and public health authorities are particularly important to prevent some infectious diseases. The DCNI/ABN and BCTRIMS recommend that patients with CNS demyelinating diseases (e.g., MS and NMOSD) be continually monitored for updates to their vaccination schedule, especially at the beginning or before a change in treatment with a disease modifying drug (DMD). It is also important to note that vaccines are safe, and physicians should encourage their use in all patients. Clearly, special care should be taken when live attenuated viruses are involved. Finally, it is important for physicians to verify which DMD the patient is receiving and when the last dose was taken, as each drug may affect the induction of immune response differently.

BACKGROUNDHydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an anti-malarial and immunomodulatory drug considered a potential candidate for drug repurposing in COVID-19 due to their in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2. Despite the potential antiviral effects and anti-inflammatory profile, the results based on clinical studies are contradictory and the quality of the decision-making process from meta-analyses summarizing the available evidence selecting studies with different designs and unblinded trials is limited. The aim of this study was to synthesize the best evidence on the efficacy and safety of HCQ as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of non-hospitalized and hospitalized patients with COVID-19.METHODSSearches for studies were performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Lilacs, the website ClinicalTrials.gov and the preprint server medRxiv from January 1, 2020 to May 17, 2021. The following elements were used to define eligibility criteria: (1) Population, individuals at high-risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (pre-exposure), individuals who had close contact with a positive or probable case of COVID-19 (post-exposure), non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and hospitalized patients with COVID-19; (2) Intervention, HCQ; (3) Comparison, placebo; (4) Outcomes: incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, need for hospitalization, length of hospital stay, need for invasive mechanical ventilation (MV), death, and adverse events; and (5) Study type, blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Risk of bias was judged according to the Cochrane guidelines for RCTs. Treatment effects were reported as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous variables and mean difference (MD) for continuous variables with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used either a fixed or random-effects model to pool the results of individual studies depending on the presence of heterogeneity. The GRADE system was used to evaluate the strength of evidence between use of HCQ and the outcomes of interest.RESULTSFourteen blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Four trials used HCQ as a prophylactic medication pre-exposure to COVID-19, two as a prophylactic medication post-exposure to COVID-19, three as treatment for non-hospitalized patients, and five as treatment for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We found no decreased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals receiving HCQ as pre-exposure (RR = 0.90; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.77) or post-exposure (RR = 0.96; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.29) prophylaxis to prevent COVID-19. There is no decreased risk of hospitalization for outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.33 to 1.23) and no decreased risk of MV (RR = 0.81; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.34) and death (RR = 1.05; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.78) among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving HCQ. The certainty of the results on the lack of clinical benefit for HCQ was rated as moderate. Moreover, our results demonstrated an increased risk for any adverse events and gastrointestinal symptoms among those using HCQ.CONCLUSIONAvailable evidence based on the results of blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs showed no clinical benefits of HCQ as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of non-hospitalized and hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Underlying mechanisms on the association between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and neurological complications are still poorly understood. Cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) have been linked to the SARS-CoV-2 infection as the result of dysregulated immune response with damage in neuronal tissues. In the current report, we present the first pediatric case of GBS with detection of SARS-CoV-2 in the cerebrospinal fluid (CFS). This unique case of COVID-19-associated GBS with detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the CSF indicates direct viral involvement inducing peripheral nerve inflammation.

Background Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an anti-malarial and immunomodulatory drug considered a potential candidate for drug repurposing in COVID-19 due to their in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2. Despite the potential antiviral effects and anti-inflammatory profile, the results based on clinical studies are contradictory. Therefore, the quality of the decision-making process from meta-analyses summarizing the available evidence selecting studies with different designs and unblinded trials is limited. The aim of this study was to synthesize the best evidence on the efficacy and safety of HCQ as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of non-hospitalized and hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods Searches were performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Lilacs, the website ClinicalTrials.gov and the preprint server medRxiv from January 1, 2020 to May 17, 2021. The following elements were used to define eligibility criteria: (1) Population: individuals at high-risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (pre-exposure), individuals who had close contact with a positive or probable case of COVID-19 (post-exposure), non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and hospitalized patients with COVID-19; (2) Intervention: HCQ; (3) Comparison: placebo; (4) Outcomes: incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, need for hospitalization, length of hospital stay, need for invasive mechanical ventilation (MV), death, and adverse events; and (5) Study type: blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Risk of bias was judged according to the Cochrane guidelines for RCTs. Treatment effects were reported as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous variables and mean difference (MD) for continuous variables with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used either a fixed or random-effects model to pool the results of individual studies depending on the presence of heterogeneity. The GRADE system was used to evaluate the strength of evidence between use of HCQ and the outcomes of interest. Findings Fourteen blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. Four trials (1942 patients: HCQ = 1271; placebo = 671) used HCQ as a prophylactic medication pre-exposure to COVID-19, two (1650 patients: HCQ = 821; placebo = 829) as a prophylactic medication post-exposure to COVID-19, three (1018 patients: HCQ = 497; placebo = 521) as treatment for non-hospitalized patients, and five (1138 patients: HCQ = 572; placebo = 566) as treatment for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We found no decreased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals receiving HCQ as pre-exposure (RR = 0.90; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.77) or post-exposure (RR = 0.96; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.29) prophylaxis to prevent COVID-19. There was no significant decreased risk of hospitalization for outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.33 to 1.23) and no decreased risk of MV (RR = 0.81; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.34) and death (RR = 1.05; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.78) among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving HCQ. The certainty of the results on the lack of clinical benefit for HCQ was rated as moderate. Moreover, our results demonstrated an increased risk for any adverse events and gastrointestinal symptoms among those using HCQ. Interpretation Available evidence based on the results of blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs showed no clinical benefits of HCQ as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of non-hospitalized and hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Funding There was no funding source.

Made available in DSpace on 2022-04-29T08:45:54Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2021-11-01 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To describe the clinical features and disease outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD). METHODS: The Neuroimmunology Brazilian Study Group has set up the report of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV2) cases in patients with NMOSD (pwNMOSD) using a designed web-based case report form. All neuroimmunology outpatient centers and individual neurologists were invited to register their patients across the country. Data collected between March 19 and July 25, 2020, were uploaded at the REDONE.br platform. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) NMOSD diagnosis according to the 2015 International Panel Criteria and (2) confirmed SARS-CoV2 infection (reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction or serology) or clinical suspicion of COVID-19, diagnosed according to Center for Disease Control / Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CDC/CSTE) case definition. Demographic and NMOSD-related clinical data, comorbidities, disease-modifying therapy (DMT), COVID-19 clinical features, and severity were described. RESULTS: Among the 2,061 pwNMOSD followed up by Brazilian neurologists involved on the registry of COVID-19 in pwNMOSD at the REDONE.br platform, 34 patients (29 women) aged 37 years (range 8-77), with disease onset at 31 years (range 4-69) and disease duration of 6 years (range 0.2-20.5), developed COVID-19 (18 confirmed and 16 probable cases). Most patients exhibited mild disease, being treated at home (77%); 4 patients required admission at intensive care units (severe cases); and 1 patient died. Five of 34 (15%) presented neurologic manifestations (relapse or pseudoexacerbation) during or after SARS-CoV2 infection. DISCUSSION: Most NMOSD patients with COVID-19 presented mild disease forms. However, pwNMOSD had much higher odds of hospitalization and intensive care unit admission comparing with the general Brazilian population. The frequency of death was not clearly different. NMOSD disability, DMT type, and comorbidities were not associated with COVID-19 outcome. SARS-CoV2 infection was demonstrated as a risk factor for NMOSD relapses. Collaborative studies using shared NMOSD data are needed to suitably define factors related to COVID-19 severity and neurologic manifestations. From the Hospital das Clínicas (S.L.A., M.B., G.D.S., L.B., C.C.D.D., D.C.), FM-USP, São Paulo; Universidade Federal de Sergipe and Univ. Tiradentes (L.C.F.), Aracaju; Hospital Univ. Getúlio Vargas (N.A.d.C.S.), Manaus; Hospital Geral de Fortaleza (G.J.M., J.A.d.A., M.S.P., L.S.M.); Universidade Federal da Bahia/Ebserh (T.F.), Salvador; Hospital Ophir Loyola (H.L.S., L.C.R.), Belém; FUNAD (B.E.S.), João Pessoa; UNICAMP (C.R.A.), Campinas; Universidade Federal de São Paulo (E.M.L., L.d.S.A.), UNIFESP; Universidade Metropolitana de Santos (A.A.F.d.C., Y.D.F.); Santa Casa (A.P.G.), Belo Horizonte; Hospital da Restauração (M.I.d.M., A.J.P.), Recife; Santa Casa (R.P.C., M.F.M.), São Paulo; Hospital de Base do Distrito Federal (R.M.D.), Brasília; Hospital Santa Marcelina (A.C.P.), São Paulo; Private Service (A.K.), Cuiabá; Clínica AMO (A.M.), Salvador; Hospital Universitário Gaffree e Guinle (C.C.F.V.), Rio de Janeiro; Santa Casa (D.R.K.M.), Londrina; Universidade Federal de Goiás (D.S.D.), Goiânia; Private Service (E.R.C.-F.), Belo Horizonte; Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu (F.C.G.D.R, D.G.B.), UNESP; Santa Casa and ABEM-Assoc. Brasileira de Esclerose Múltipla (G.S.d.O.), São Paulo; Universidade Estácio de Sá and Universidade Federal Fluminenses (G.A.C.), Rio de Janeiro; Universidade Federal Fluminense (H.H.R.), Campinas

The challenges of monitoring neurological manifestations associated with COVID-19 in Latin America: does the World Health Organization need changes?

IntroductionSARS-Cov-2 virus pandemic causes serious emotional consequences. It has occurred widespread medical courses suspension, and graduations were anticipated. Field hospitals, set up to treat patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, were the main workplaces of newly graduated doctors.ObjectiveTo assess the impact of SARS-Cov-2/COVID-19 pandemic on mental health of medical interns and newly graduated doctors.MethodThis is a cross-sectional study performed using a digital platform. Links to forms were sent in two moments: moment 1 (M1), at the beginning of the pandemic, in the first half of April/2020 and moment 2 (M2), after six months of pandemic, in the second half of September/2020. All students from the medical internship and all doctors graduated since 2018 from the three medical schools in Sergipe-NE-Brazil were invited.Results335 forms were answered in April and 148 in September. In M1 88.9% considered themselves exposed to excess of information about COVID-19, which was associated with anxiety symptoms (p = 0.04). Long family physical distance was also associated with these symptoms, as increased appetite (p = 0.01), feeling shortness of breath (p = 0.003) and sweating (p = 0.007). Fear of acquire COVID-19 was reported as intense by almost half of participants, and of transmitting by 85.7% in M1. In M2 41.2% reported the death of friends or relatives. Psychiatric illness was described by 38.5% and psychotropic drugs use by 30.1% in M1, especially those who lived alone (p = 0.03) and the single ones (p = 0.01). Alcohol intake was reported by 54.3%, and among doctors graduated in 2020 it increased from 50% in M1 to 85% in M2 (p = 0.04).ConclusionThe pandemic had a negative impact on the mental health of medical students and newly graduated doctors. Exposure to excessive COVID-19 information and family physical distance were associated to anxiety symptoms. Among doctors graduated in 2020, alcohol intake increased during pandemic evolution.

Background and purpose Miller Fisher syndrome (MFS) is a subtype of Guillain-Barre syndrome characterized by the triad of ophthalmoparesis, areflexia, and ataxia. Although cases of MFS have been associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, no studies have synthesized the clinical characteristics of patients with this condition. Methods In this rapid systematic review, we searched the PubMed database to identify studies on MFS associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results This review identified 11 cases, of whom 3 were hospitalized with motor and/or sensory polyneuropathy as the first sign of SARS-CoV-2 infection. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was not detected in analyses of cerebrospinal fluid, suggesting a mechanism of immune-mediated injury rather than direct viral neurotropism. However, antiganglioside antibodies were found in only two of the nine patients tested. It is possible that target antigens other than gangliosides are involved in MFS associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Conclusions The present patients exhibited clinical improvement after being treated with intravenous immunoglobulin. Although rare, patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection may present neurological symptoms suggestive of MFS. Early recognition of the MFS clinical triad is essential for the timely initiation of treatment.

Restless legs syndrome (RLS) is a neurological disorder that responds to dopaminergic drugs, indicating a common pathophysiology with Parkinson's disease (PD). The prevalence of RLS was estimated in a group of PD patients and its clinical and biochemical characteristics were analysed. Forty-eight patients with PD were evaluated into two groups, with and without RLS. Clinical characteristics assessed in both groups were age, gender, duration of PD, Hoehn and Yahr, and Schwab and England scales. Laboratory variables such as hemoglobin, s-iron, s-ferritin and creatinine were obtained. The prevalence of RLS was 18.75%. No significant differences regarding clinical variables and biochemical parameters were observed. The high prevalence of RLS found in PD patients suggests the concept of a common etiological link and it seems that secondary causes did not play a central role in the pathophysiology of RLS in this group of parkinsonian patients. A síndrome das pernas inquietas (SPI) é um distúrbio sensitivo-motor que responde aos agentes dopaminérgicos, demonstrando uma possível semelhança fisiopatológica com a doença de Parkinson (DP). Foi avaliada a prevalência da SPI em um grupo de pacientes com DP e suas características clínicas e laboratoriais. Quarenta e oito pacientes diagnosticados com DP foram divididos em dois grupos: com e sem SPI. Características clínicas como idade, sexo, duração da DP, escalas de Hoehn e Yahr, e Schwab e England e achados bioquímicos como hemoglobina, ferro sérico, ferritina sérica e creatinina foram obtidos. A freqüência da SPI foi de 18,75%. Não se observaram diferenças estatisticamente significativas quanto às características clínicas e aos achados bioquímicos. A alta prevalência de SPI encontrada em pacientes com DP sugere associação entre essas duas doenças. É provável que causas secundárias não exerçam papel central na fisiopatologia da SPI nesse grupo de pacientes parkinsonianos.