PURPOSE There has been noteworthy concern about the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on health services including the management of cancer. In addition to being considered at higher risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, people with cancer may also experience disruptions or delays in health services. This systematic review aimed to identify the delays and disruptions to cancer services globally. METHODS This is a systematic review with a comprehensive search including specific and general databases. We considered any observational longitudinal and cross-sectional study design. The selection, data extraction, and methodological assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by specific tools. The delays and disruptions identified were categorized, and their frequency was presented. RESULTS Among the 62 studies identified, none exhibited high methodological quality. The most frequent determinants for disruptions were provider- or system-related, mainly because of the reduction in service availability. The studies identified 38 different categories of delays and disruptions with impact on treatment, diagnosis, or general health service. Delays or disruptions most investigated included reduction in routine activity of cancer services and number of cancer surgeries; delay in radiotherapy; and delay, reschedule, or cancellation of outpatient visits. Interruptions and disruptions largely affected facilities (up to 77.5%), supply chain (up to 79%), and personnel availability (up to 60%). CONCLUSION The remarkable frequency of delays and disruptions in health care mostly related to the reduction of the COVID-19 burden unintentionally posed a major risk on cancer care worldwide. Strategies can be proposed not only to mitigate the main delays and disruptions but also to standardize their measurement and reporting. As a high number of publications continuously are being published, it is critical to harmonize the upcoming reports and constantly update this review.

Aims To identify, systematically evaluate and summarise the best available evidence on the frequency of long COVID‐19 (post‐acute COVID‐19 syndrome), its clinical manifestations, and the criteria used for diagnosis. Methods Systematic review conducted with a comprehensive search including formal databases, COVID‐19 or SARS‐CoV‐2 data sources, grey literature, and manual search. We considered for inclusion clinical trials, observational longitudinal comparative and non‐comparative studies, cross‐sectional, before‐and‐after, and case series. We assessed the methodological quality by specific tools based on the study designs. We presented the results as a narrative synthesis regarding the frequency and duration of long COVID‐19, signs and symptoms, criteria used for diagnosis, and potential risk factors. Results We included 25 observational studies with moderate to high methodological quality, considering 5440 participants. The frequency of long COVID‐19 ranged from 4.7% to 80%, and the most prevalent signs/symptoms were chest pain (up to 89%), fatigue (up to 65%), dyspnea (up to 61%), and cough and sputum production (up to 59%). Temporal criteria used to define long COVID‐19 varied from 3 to 24 weeks after acute phase or hospital discharge. Potentially associated risk factors were old age, female sex, severe clinical status, a high number of comorbidities, hospital admission, and oxygen supplementation at the acute phase. However, limitations related to study designs added uncertainty to this finding. None of the studies assessed the duration of signs/symptoms. Conclusion The frequency of long COVID‐19 reached up to 80% over the studies included and occurred between 3 and 24 weeks after acute phase or hospital discharge. Chest pain, fatigue, dyspnea, and cough were the most reported clinical manifestations attributed to the condition. Based on these systematic review findings, there is an urgent need to understand this emerging, complex and challenging medical condition. Proposals for diagnostic criteria and standard terminology are welcome.

The objective of this study was to provide normative SF-36 scores in a general population sample in Brazil and to describe differences in mean scores according to socio-demographic characteristics. The SF-36 questionnaire was distributed to a randomly selected sample of the general population of Porto Alegre in the State of Rio Grande do Sul. The response rate was 68% and 755 subjects were included (38% male, 62% female). Lower health status was revealed among females in the 30 to 44 year age bracket, from the lower income class, with less education and self-reported chronic medical conditions. The results and percentiles of scores of the SF-36 are reported as normative data for the general population. The SF-36 was an acceptable and practical instrument for measuring health-related quality of life in a sample of Brazilians. The results of this study can be useful for researchers using the SF-36 questionnaire in other groups to compare the scores with normative data. The SF-36 may prove a valuable tool for discovering vulnerable groups in epidemiological studies due to the ability to discriminate between different population subgroups.

Introduction Different therapies are currently used, considered, or proposed for the treatment of COVID-19; for many of those therapies, no appropriate assessment of effectiveness and safety was performed. This document aims to provide scientifically available evidence-based information in a transparent interpretation, to subsidize decisions related to the pharmacological therapy of COVID-19 in Brazil. Methods A group of 27 experts and methodologists integrated a task-force formed by professionals from the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine ( Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB), the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases ( Sociedad Brasileira de Infectologia - SBI) and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology ( Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia - SBPT). Rapid systematic reviews, updated on April 28, 2020, were conducted. The assessment of the quality of evidence and the development of recommendations followed the GRADE system. The recommendations were written on May 5, 8, and 13, 2020. Results Eleven recommendations were issued based on low or very-low level evidence. We do not recommend the routine use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroids, or tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19. Prophylactic heparin should be used in hospitalized patients, however, no anticoagulation should be provided for patients without a specific clinical indication. Antibiotics and oseltamivir should only be considered for patients with suspected bacterial or influenza coinfection, respectively. Conclusion So far no pharmacological intervention was proven effective and safe to warrant its use in the routine treatment of COVID-19 patients; therefore such patients should ideally be treated in the context of clinical trials. The recommendations herein provided will be revised continuously aiming to capture newly generated evidence.